"Wars of Apostasy" of the 7th Century

[Spiritus Naturae]

I was hoping to get info on the causes for the Wars of Apostasy. Perhpas SilverRain could offer some insight? All I know about them is that they took place very shortly after Mohammed's death. Why? What did they accomplish?

Thanks
Jonathan

[SilverRain]

I was hoping to get info on the causes for the Wars of Apostasy. Perhpas SilverRain could offer some insight? All I know about them is that they took place very shortly after Mohammed's death. Why? What did they accomplish?

Thanks
JonathanGreetings Jonathan,

To sum it up, after Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) death, there was quite a bit of chaos. The Prophet was extremely beloved to the Muslims, and many of them went in denial. It was Abu Bakr (RA) that stood up and proclaimed, "Whoever was worshiping Muhammad, know that he is dead. But whoever is worshipping God, know that God lives and never dies." He then quoted a verse from the Qur'an:

"Muhammad is but a messenger, messengers have passed away before him. Will it be that, when he dieth or is slain, ye will turn back on your heals (to unbelief)? He who turneth back doth no hurt to Allah, and Allah will reward the thankful." [Qur'an 3:144]

Abu Bakr understood that in the end of it all, Muhammad was simply the Messenger of God. It was the Message itself that was truly important. But, the tribes of Arabia who had became Muslims during the time of the Prophet, were very weak in their faith. Many of them turned away from Islam, became apostates, and began to reject Islamic Law and refused to pay the due Zakat, while some others made undue claims to prophethood. This is a very serious matter in Islam.

After becoming Caliph, as the Prophet (PBUH) recommended before his death, Abu Bakr pursued the policy of the Prophet (PBUH). So he considered those who refused to pay Zakat as apostates, and said: “By Allah, if they withhold a rope of a camel they used to give its due Zakat to Allah’s Messenger, I will fight them for it.”

Abu Bakr set for preparing the Muslim armies, but, beforehand, he sent envoys to the rebel tribes to call them to return to Islam or face severe punishment.

At the beginning of Rajab, eleven Muslim armies set out to fight renegade tribes all over the Arabian Peninsula. Khalid Ibn Al-Walid led an army of 3,000 to the tribe of Taiy, whose leader Tulaihah Ibn Khwailed Al-Asdi claimed prophethood. War broke out between them in a place called Bozakhah at the beginning of Ramadan, 11 A.H. Then the Muslim fighters managed to win the war and end temptations against Islam, Tulaihah could flee. Later on he repented and pledged allegiance to `Umar and fought in the cause of Allah.

Thus, Abu Bakr exercised his leadership of the Muslims and maintained the security of Islam.

This is a short summary of the history. I hope this suffices.

Peace,
Muaad

[Spiritus Naturae]

Greetings Jonathan,

To sum it up, after Prophet Muhammad's (PBUH) death, there was quite a bit of chaos. The Prophet was extremely beloved to the Muslims, and many of them went in denial. It was Abu Bakr (RA) that stood up and proclaimed, "Whoever was worshiping Muhammad, know that he is dead. But whoever is worshipping God, know that God lives and never dies." He then quoted a verse from the Qur'an:

"Muhammad is but a messenger, messengers have passed away before him. Will it be that, when he dieth or is slain, ye will turn back on your heals (to unbelief)? He who turneth back doth no hurt to Allah, and Allah will reward the thankful." [Qur'an 3:144]

Abu Bakr understood that in the end of it all, Muhammad was simply the Messenger of God. It was the Message itself that was truly important. But, the tribes of Arabia who had became Muslims during the time of the Prophet, were very weak in their faith. Many of them turned away from Islam, became apostates, and began to reject Islamic Law and refused to pay the due Zakat, while some others made undue claims to prophethood. This is a very serious matter in Islam.

After becoming Caliph, as the Prophet (PBUH) recommended before his death, Abu Bakr pursued the policy of the Prophet (PBUH). So he considered those who refused to pay Zakat as apostates, and said: “By Allah, if they withhold a rope of a camel they used to give its due Zakat to Allah’s Messenger, I will fight them for it.”

Abu Bakr set for preparing the Muslim armies, but, beforehand, he sent envoys to the rebel tribes to call them to return to Islam or face severe punishment.

At the beginning of Rajab, eleven Muslim armies set out to fight renegade tribes all over the Arabian Peninsula. Khalid Ibn Al-Walid led an army of 3,000 to the tribe of Taiy, whose leader Tulaihah Ibn Khwailed Al-Asdi claimed prophethood. War broke out between them in a place called Bozakhah at the beginning of Ramadan, 11 A.H. Then the Muslim fighters managed to win the war and end temptations against Islam, Tulaihah could flee. Later on he repented and pledged allegiance to `Umar and fought in the cause of Allah.

Thus, Abu Bakr exercised his leadership of the Muslims and maintained the security of Islam.

This is a short summary of the history. I hope this suffices.

Peace,
Muaad

Interesting post, SilverRain. But doesnt all of the above constitute and support the claim that Islam was spread by the sword? That people were compelled through violence, threats and intimidation to stay involved with Islam or to become a Muslim in the first place? Just curious...

SN

[SilverRain]

Interesting post, SilverRain. But doesnt all of the above constitute and support the claim that Islam was spread by the sword? That people were compelled through violence, threats and intimidation to stay involved with Islam or to become a Muslim in the first place? Just curious...

SNSpiritusNaturae,

You are misunderstanding. There is a very big difference between compulsion in religion, and Islamic Law. In Islam, there is absolutely no compulsion in religion. No one may be forced to become Muslim. But in the case of Apostasy, when one becomes Muslim and becomes an apostate, under Islamic Law the punishment for this is death if the person does not return to his religion. This of course is only put through the proper due process of Islamic Law which requires an Islamic state and proper institutions to be in place. Belief in God is a very serious thing in Islam... it is not a game we play. You cannot accept Islam one day and the next say "Ahh... I don't feel like being Muslim anymore... too high of a standard for me.." That is why when a man wants to convert to Islam, the Muslim scholars will tell him to take his time and make sure that he is willing to take that step and become a believer, understanding that this is a very serious matter.

This is different than compulsion in religion. God says in the Holy Qur'an:

"Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things." [Qur'an 2:256]

No Muslim person or government may force a Jew, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Atheist, or whomever into becoming a Muslim. God specifically prohibits this. For, it is irrational in the highest sense. How can you force someone to have faith? Faith comes from the heart and is grown from there; it is not something someone can place in your heart by putting a gun to your head and saying "Accept Islam, or die." And the testament to this is the Islamic History. By and large throughout Islamic history the Muslims gave all of the rights due to the Non-Muslims (Christians, Jews, Pagans, etc.) when they conquered the lands. The Christian churches were not destroyed nor were Christians forbidden from going and worshipping as they please. The Christians and Jews were allowed to have their own court systems, and rule by the law of their religions respectively. This is a right not granted to anyone in any democratic country in the world today. In Spain, the Christian Visigothic kingdom was severely oppressing the Jews, but when the Muslims conquered Spain, the Jews were given freedom and so were the Christians. Muslims, Jews, and Christians thrived together from Jerusalem to Andalusia: all over the Islamic empire. The reality is, it is simply ignorance- those that say Islam was spread by the sword.

Rather, if you read about the Christian crusade of Spain against the Islamic empire of Andalusia under Ferdinand and Isabella in 1492, the country quickly fell back into darkness as was brought by the Inquisiton. It wasn't just the Christian heretics that were delivered unto the Inquisiton. Also, the Muslims and Jews were forced to be baptized and accept Christianity or face death. Many of them fled for their lives, but those that accepted Christianity under compulsion still have a designated name to them this day: the Muslims were called 'Moriscos'. Here is a link to read up on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morisco .

The lands that were conquered under the banner of Islam, were of course "taken by the sword". There were battles that took place. The armies met on the battlefield and if the Muslims were to be victorious they would conquer that land. But once that land was conquered, No one was forced to become Muslim. Everyone was allowed to live as they are, and they enjoyed more freedoms than they did when they were under their previous rulers. The people in most cases welcomed the Muslims, for they were being oppressed by the previous regime. You see, the Muslims believe that Land belongs to God, and Him alone. God grants victory to whom He will.

I hope I have dispelled the myth. If you are skeptical still, I encourage you to read up on Muslim history on your own time, rather than take my word for it... the history is there. Just make sure you read it from a fair source, rather than a biased author. And there are many great books written by Christian scholars that will testify to what I have said above.

Salam,
Muaad

[Krusader]

SpiritusNaturae,

You are misunderstanding. There is a very big difference between compulsion in religion, and Islamic Law. In Islam, there is absolutely no compulsion in religion. No one may be forced to become Muslim. But in the case of Apostasy, when one becomes Muslim and becomes an apostate, under Islamic Law the punishment for this is death if the person does not return to his religion. This of course is only put through the proper due process of Islamic Law which requires an Islamic state and proper institutions to be in place. Belief in God is a very serious thing in Islam... it is not a game we play. You cannot accept Islam one day and the next say "Ahh... I don't feel like being Muslim anymore... too high of a standard for me.." That is why when a man wants to convert to Islam, the Muslim scholars will tell him to take his time and make sure that he is willing to take that step and become a believer, understanding that this is a very serious matter.

This is different than compulsion in religion. God says in the Holy Qur'an:

"Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from Error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy hand-hold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things." [Qur'an 2:256]

No Muslim person or government may force a Jew, Christian, Buddhist, Hindu, Atheist, or whomever into becoming a Muslim. God specifically prohibits this. For, it is irrational in the highest sense. How can you force someone to have faith? Faith comes from the heart and is grown from there; it is not something someone can place in your heart by putting a gun to your head and saying "Accept Islam, or die." And the testament to this is the Islamic History. By and large throughout Islamic history the Muslims gave all of the rights due to the Non-Muslims (Christians, Jews, Pagans, etc.) when they conquered the lands. The Christian churches were not destroyed nor were Christians forbidden from going and worshipping as they please. The Christians and Jews were allowed to have their own court systems, and rule by the law of their religions respectively. This is a right not granted to anyone in any democratic country in the world today. In Spain, the Christian Visigothic kingdom was severely oppressing the Jews, but when the Muslims conquered Spain, the Jews were given freedom and so were the Christians. Muslims, Jews, and Christians thrived together from Jerusalem to Andalusia: all over the Islamic empire. The reality is, it is simply ignorance- those that say Islam was spread by the sword.

Rather, if you read about the Christian crusade of Spain against the Islamic empire of Andalusia under Ferdinand and Isabella in 1492, the country quickly fell back into darkness as was brought by the Inquisiton. It wasn't just the Christian heretics that were delivered unto the Inquisiton. Also, the Muslims and Jews were forced to be baptized and accept Christianity or face death. Many of them fled for their lives, but those that accepted Christianity under compulsion still have a designated name to them this day: the Muslims were called 'Moriscos'. Here is a link to read up on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morisco .

The lands that were conquered under the banner of Islam, were of course "taken by the sword". There were battles that took place. The armies met on the battlefield and if the Muslims were to be victorious they would conquer that land. But once that land was conquered, No one was forced to become Muslim. Everyone was allowed to live as they are, and they enjoyed more freedoms than they did when they were under their previous rulers. The people in most cases welcomed the Muslims, for they were being oppressed by the previous regime. You see, the Muslims believe that Land belongs to God, and Him alone. God grants victory to whom He will.

I hope I have dispelled the myth. If you are skeptical still, I encourage you to read up on Muslim history on your own time, rather than take my word for it... the history is there. Just make sure you read it from a fair source, rather than a biased author. And there are many great books written by Christian scholars that will testify to what I have said above.

Salam,
MuaadAre you familiar with the Coptic Church found in Egypt? To this very day, they are not allowed to build a new church or to repair an old church - they even have to get special government permission if they want to have a plumber fix the toilet.

Are you aware that Christians in Nigeria, especially the northern area which is under Islamic law, regularly are murdered and have their churches burned.

Are you aware that in parts of Indonesia, those who follow Christ have been decapitated and had their heads stuck on long poles and paraded through the streets by Muslims?

Are you aware that if a Muslim converts to Christianity in Pakistan, they have less than a 50% chance of living a week?

No compulsion in religion - baloney!

[SilverRain]

Are you familiar with the Coptic Church found in Egypt? To this very day, they are not allowed to build a new church or to repair an old church - they even have to get special government permission if they want to have a plumber fix the toilet.

Are you aware that Christians in Nigeria, especially the northern area which is under Islamic law, regularly are murdered and have their churches burned.

Are you aware that in parts of Indonesia, those who follow Christ have been decapitated and had their heads stuck on long poles and paraded through the streets by Muslims?

Are you aware that if a Muslim converts to Christianity in Pakistan, they have less than a 50% chance of living a week?

No compulsion in religion - baloney!Crusader,

You never cease to disappoint me. You are always looking for the attack, never for a constructive dialog. You are apparently not following the discussion. We are speaking about Islamic History. The past and greatness of the Islamic Empire. We have fallen so far from that time, both morally and in our integrity.

I can do you one better. I can bring you many modern-day examples of very shady things done by 'Muslims' today. I can also bring you many modern-day examples of very shady things done by 'Christians' today as well. That is not what we are discussing here. We are discussing the myth that Islam was spread by the sword. There is no scriptual support for any of the atrocities done by these 'Muslims' and 'Christians' today... and thats what we need to look at. Learn to differentiate between the scripture and doctrines of a faith and its followers. We can point at this person and that person who does this and that all day to attack a religion, but that would not be wise.

I can bring you many stories from the disciples of the Prophet (PBUH) of how they dealt with Non-Muslims with grace and honor, and this is what Islam commands. Islam says no compulsion in religion, you will find those that are truly Muslim obeying God in his commands. We cannot speak for the rest.

And please... no more posts further demonstrating your stupidity and lack of respect... Christianity commands that you be truthful. Follow your own faith so that you may not be one of those 'Christians'.

Peace,
Muaad

[Krusader]

Crusader,

You never cease to disappoint me. You are always looking for the attack, never for a constructive dialog. You are apparently not following the discussion. We are speaking about Islamic History. The past and greatness of the Islamic Empire. We have fallen so far from that time, both morally and in our integrity.

I can do you one better. I can bring you many modern-day examples of very shady things done by 'Muslims' today. I can also bring you many modern-day examples of very shady things done by 'Christians' today as well. That is not what we are discussing here. We are discussing the myth that Islam was spread by the sword. There is no scriptual support for any of the atrocities done by these 'Muslims' and 'Christians' today... and thats what we need to look at. Learn to differentiate between the scripture and doctrines of a faith and its followers. We can point at this person and that person who does this and that all day to attack a religion, but that would not be wise.

I can bring you many stories from the disciples of the Prophet (PBUH) of how they dealt with Non-Muslims with grace and honor, and this is what Islam commands. Islam says no compulsion in religion, you will find those that are truly Muslim obeying God in his commands. We cannot speak for the rest.

And please... no more posts further demonstrating your stupidity and lack of respect... Christianity commands that you be truthful. Follow your own faith so that you may not be one of those 'Christians'.

Peace,
Muaad
It seems that Muslims and their syncophants are constantly using the word "lie" when their rhetoric is challenged. If I have lied, I challenge you to expose those lies by the facts - otherwise, engage in dialogue on the facts I presented. Are you saying that no persecution takes place in the areas I mentioned? I was challenging your assertion that there is no compulsion in religion in Islam - which, as I have proven, is not so.

Let's look at some other things:

The Invasion of Damascus: On pagaes 131 and 132 of "The Rightly Guided Caliphs," the author (Abu Zayd) indicates:

"Abu 'Ubayda marched towards Damascus and beseiged it for seventy nights. He cut off all supplies while its inhabitants were pleading for help and assistance. The Khalid attacked the city and massacred thousands of people. They were forced to ask for a peace treaty. Abu 'Ubayda turned over the rule of Damascus to Yazid and ordered him to invade the neighboring cities. He attacked Sidon, Beirut and others."

Further, pgs. 167-168: " Uthman ordered 'Abdalla Ibn Abi al-Sarh to invade Africa, then he send Ab dalla Ibn al-Zubayr. They slaughtered thousands of the people among them their king, Jayan, and the captured booty."

Further, pgs. 66-67: "The thing that compelled Abu Bakr to invade Persia and the Byzantine Empire was not to seize their abundance, but rather to spread Islam. This claim is based on evidence that the generals of the Islamic armies used to call the countries to embrace Islam before they started fighting them. Khalid Ibn al-Walid sent a message to the princes of Persia saying: 'After all, accept Islam and you will be safe, or pay the tribute; otherwise I will come to you with a people who desire death as you desire drinking wine."

There are hundreds of references like the above demonstrating the spread of Islam by the sword - the blackmail the caliphs used to spread their religion: either submit to Islam or you will be taxed, or even worse, death. Muslims made unprevoked assaults against their neighbors, but the apologists today want to look the other way and present Islam as a peaceful religion. Well, the facts speak otherwise.

Anyone who has any doubts about the true history of Islam and its quest to spread its doctrines by the sword, can go to the Prophet of Doom website, where the myth of a peaceful Islam is exposed for the lie it is!

See: http://www.prophetofdoom.net/

[Snarf]

It seems that Muslims and their syncophants are constantly using the word "lie" when their rhetoric is challenged. If I have lied, I challenge you to expose those lies by the facts - otherwise, engage in dialogue on the facts I presented. Are you saying that no persecution takes place in the areas I mentioned? I was challenging your assertion that there is no compulsion in religion in Islam - which, as I have proven, is not so.

Let's look at some other things:

The Invasion of Damascus: On pagaes 131 and 132 of "The Rightly Guided Caliphs," the author (Abu Zayd) indicates:

"Abu 'Ubayda marched towards Damascus and beseiged it for seventy nights. He cut off all supplies while its inhabitants were pleading for help and assistance. The Khalid attacked the city and massacred thousands of people. They were forced to ask for a peace treaty. Abu 'Ubayda turned over the rule of Damascus to Yazid and ordered him to invade the neighboring cities. He attacked Sidon, Beirut and others."

Further, pgs. 167-168: " Uthman ordered 'Abdalla Ibn Abi al-Sarh to invade Africa, then he send Ab dalla Ibn al-Zubayr. They slaughtered thousands of the people among them their king, Jayan, and the captured booty."

Further, pgs. 66-67: "The thing that compelled Abu Bakr to invade Persia and the Byzantine Empire was not to seize their abundance, but rather to spread Islam. This claim is based on evidence that the generals of the Islamic armies used to call the countries to embrace Islam before they started fighting them. Khalid Ibn al-Walid sent a message to the princes of Persia saying: 'After all, accept Islam and you will be safe, or pay the tribute; otherwise I will come to you with a people who desire death as you desire drinking wine."

There are hundreds of references like the above demonstrating the spread of Islam by the sword - the blackmail the caliphs used to spread their religion: either submit to Islam or you will be taxed, or even worse, death. Muslims made unprevoked assaults against their neighbors, but the apologists today want to look the other way and present Islam as a peaceful religion. Well, the facts speak otherwise.

Anyone who has any doubts about the true history of Islam and its quest to spread its doctrines by the sword, can go to the Prophet of Doom website, where the myth of a peaceful Islam is exposed for the lie it is!

See: http://www.prophetofdoom.net/

Crusader and Silver Rain:

Is it not possible to explain all of these violent actions by Christians and Muslims in the Middle Ages by the simple fact that people were a lot more violent in those days? (shall we say, level of background violence?) Consider what Mongols did to those that they conquered (like pouring molten gold down one governor's throat), Vlad the Impaler impaling Turks for public display, the English practice of drawing and quartering, etc.
I mean, things were ugly then!

[Krusader]

Crusader and Silver Rain:

Is it not possible to explain all of these violent actions by Christians and Muslims in the Middle Ages by the simple fact that people were a lot more violent in those days? (shall we say, level of background violence?) Consider what Mongols did to those that they conquered (like pouring molten gold down one governor's throat), Vlad the Impaler impaling Turks for public display, the English practice of drawing and quartering, etc.
I mean, things were ugly then!
I'd agree that there was a level of violence then that does not exist now - especially in reference to Christianity. However, it is a common Islamic apologetics device to appeal to possible converts with the scenario that Mohammed said there was no compulsion in religion. This was an early surah, later replaced by surahs calling Muslims to fight (jihad) unbelievers until Islam was established.

The fruits of Islam are apparent today in many parts of the world where Christians are not allowed to build churches, publicly worship, repair churches, and often suffer death if they are converts from Islam.

[InChristAlways]

Silverrain to another posterYou are misunderstanding. There is a very big difference between compulsion in religion, and Islamic Law. In Islam, there is absolutely no compulsion in religion. No one may be forced to become Muslim. But in the case of Apostasy, when one becomes Muslim and becomes an apostate, under Islamic Law the punishment for this is death if the person does not return to his religion. This of course is only put through the proper due process of Islamic Law which requires an Islamic state and proper institutions to be in place. Belief in God is a very serious thing in Islam. I can bring you many stories from the disciples of the Prophet (PBUH) of how they dealt with Non-Muslims with grace and honor, and this is what Islam commands. Islam says no compulsion in religion, you will find those that are truly Muslim obeying God in his commands. We cannot speak for the rest.

.So what makes Islam think it can judge and execute those that leave the faith? Where in the NT does it give that command?
Appears to me it should be a person's free choice to either join or leave and it sounds to me that Islam chooses "fear/oppression" to keep those from leaving. Why not just cast them out like a "leper" and avoid that person? I truly don't understand that, as it appears that is akin to "murder". What makes you think that person may not change their mind later and come back? How do you know God may not have put it in that person to leave? Sounds to me like you are putting yourself in the place of God as that person did not take another's life. God bless.
Romans 12: 19 Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but [rather] give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance Mine, I will repay," says the Lord. [i]20 Therefore "If your enemy is hungry, feed him; If he is thirsty, give him a drink; For in so doing you will heap coals of fire on his head." 21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

[SilverRain]

Crusader,

You are missing the point entirely. I am not debating with you whether these things happen or not. I will openly admit I have no knowledge of them. But in your own self-righteous arrogance, you are missing the point I have stated at least twice on this message board. Let me bring it down to a 3rd grade level so that you may understand:

There are the doctrines of Islam: Pillars, Scripture, and Laws. These pillars, beliefs, and laws are perfect as they are designated by God, the Creator of the Worlds.

Then there are the Muslims: Human beings subject to inequity, imperfection, fanaticism, ignorance, and all other forms of immorality.

Conclusion: Do not judge Islam by the Muslims, but judge Islam by its Pillars, Scripture, and Laws.

Stop regurgitating the same pathetic arguments over and over again. The Muslims that are engaged in persecution and violence who are in direct violation of their own faith make up a small minority of the larger Muslim community. But even if every Muslim on the face of this planet was a vile creature causing destruction, this in no way means that Islam is a vile religion. This is what we call a Non-Sequitur. The same can be said for Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and every other Religion or Ideology.

This is the last time I will repeat this. After that I am putting you on ignore. Realistically, you are not even worth my time. And please for the love of God, stop copying and pasting polemic garbage from other websites (www.answering-islam.com (http://www.answering-islam.com/), www.prophetofdoom.net (http://www.prophetofdoom.net/)) to attack Islam. Do your own research and thinking for God's sake. Do yourself a favor and watch the debate between Zakir Naik and William Campbell on the Qur'an, Bible, and Science where the whole "Answering Islam" team gets a beat down: http://www.examinethetruth.com/Debate_Video.htm

The Conquest is all together a topic on its own, and I know as soon as I mention something you will not look to understand but to attack. It is to be made clear that the Conquest was made on the Seat of Power of the Empires and not the civilians. University of Chicago Professor Fred Donner's quote from his book "Early Islamic Conquests," should suffice for the moment: " "[T]here is the possibility that the ideological message of Islam itself filled some or all of the ruling elite with the notion that they had an essentially religious duty to expand the political domain of the Islamic state as far as practically possible; that is, the elite may have organized the Islamic conquest movement because they saw it as their divinely ordained mission to do so." And as I mentioned before all though the Conquests were obviously taken by war, the population were granted their rights and free will on whether to accept Islam or not. This was not to be found in the Christian conquests where there followed persecution of civilians and compulsion in accepting Christianity after their Crusades.

Peace,
Muaad

[SilverRain]

So what makes Islam think it can judge and execute those that leave the faith? Where in the NT does it give that command?

Appears to me it should be a person's free choice to either join or leave and it sounds to me that Islam chooses "fear/oppression" to keep those from leaving. Why not just cast them out like a "leper" and avoid that person? I truly don't understand that, as it appears that is akin to "murder". What makes you think that person may not change their mind later and come back? How do you know God may not have put it in that person to leave? Sounds to me like you are putting yourself in the place of God as that person did not take another's life. God bless.InChristAlways,

You have raised valid arguments and thoughts and I thank you for your intention in understanding rather than attacking.

I have to admit I am a student and still learning. I did a little reading on the subject and I hope I can clarify the topic at hand.

As I have stated, no one may be forced to become a Muslim. But the issue we are discussing here is about the Apostates and the Law of Apostasy, which is based on a Sound Hadith (Narration) from the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH).

I understand how you may understand that punishing Apostastes is a degree of compulsion, and therefore contradicting the Qur'an, but allow me to explain.

The Apostasty to be punishable by death is to be political in nature and aimed at those who will cause betrayal to the Islamic community. The death penalty is meant to be applied not to a simple act of Apostasy but to an act of political betrayal. In this sense it is likened to treason, and Treason is punishable by death in every nation on this Earth. The ruling is focused on times of war, when a Muslim deserter leaves Islam and joins the ranks of the enemies to wage war against Islam, rather than a measure to control the faith of those who pose no threat to the Islamic community.

This is demonstrated in the "Wars of Apostasy," which the brief summary I have mentioned above, and in the time of the Prophet Muhammad (PBUH). There are no incidents in his time of a layman being executed for apostasy.

The Law of Apostasy which is only upon men of maturity and not women, children, the mentally ill, etc. is only put through the due process of Islamic Law. The person would be put through a court system, and would be given three full days to repent.

Why would God put in the heart of someone to disbelieve unjustly than hold him accountable for that? This would be arbitrarily messing with free will without justice. I am guessing this is coming from the Christian perspective maintaining that Islam is a false religion.

But from the pragmatic perspective, you must remember that Muslims believe indefinately that Islam is the religion of God and that those who are leaving Islam are defying and disbelieving in God. This is much worse than the biggest sins a man can do in this life, and if these other sins are punished by death, than you can only imagine the punishment an apostate would recieve.

As stated by a friend:

"The one who has known the religion which Allaah revealed, entered it and practised it, then rejected it, despised it and left it, is a person who does not deserve to live on the earth of Allaah and eat from the provision of Allaah. By leaving Islaam, the apostate opens the way for everyone who wants to leave the faith, thus spreading apostasy and encouraging it.

The apostate is not to be killed without warning. Even though his crime is so great, he is given a last chance, a respite of three days in which to repent. If he repents, he will be left alone; if he does not repent, then he will be killed. If the punishment for murder and espionage (also known as high treason) is death, then what should be the punishment for the one who disbelieves in the Lord of mankind and despises and rejects His religion? Is espionage or shedding blood worse than leaving the religion of the Lord of mankind and rejecting it?"

I hope that clarifies and I will continue to learn.

Peace Be Upon You,
Muaad

[Snarf]

Crusader,

You are missing the point entirely. I am not debating with you whether these things happen or not. I will openly admit I have no knowledge of them. But in your own self-righteous arrogance, you are missing the point I have stated at least twice on this message board. Let me bring it down to a 3rd grade level so that you may understand:

There are the doctrines of Islam: Pillars, Scripture, and Laws. These pillars, beliefs, and laws are perfect as they are designated by God, the Creator of the Worlds.

Then there are the Muslims: Human beings subject to inequity, imperfection, fanaticism, ignorance, and all other forms of immorality.

Conclusion: Do not judge Islam by the Muslims, but judge Islam by its Pillars, Scripture, and Laws.

Stop regurgitating the same pathetic arguments over and over again. The Muslims that are engaged in persecution and violence who are in direct violation of their own faith make up a small minority of the larger Muslim community. But even if every Muslim on the face of this planet was a vile creature causing destruction, this in no way means that Islam is a vile religion. This is what we call a Non-Sequitur. The same can be said for Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and every other Religion or Ideology.

This is the last time I will repeat this. After that I am putting you on ignore. Realistically, you are not even worth my time. And please for the love of God, stop copying and pasting polemic garbage from other websites (www.answering-islam.com (http://www.answering-islam.com/), www.prophetofdoom.net (http://www.prophetofdoom.net/)) to attack Islam. Do your own research and thinking for God's sake. Do yourself a favor and watch the debate between Zakir Naik and William Campbell on the Qur'an, Bible, and Science where the whole "Answering Islam" team gets a beat down: http://www.examinethetruth.com/Debate_Video.htm

The Conquest is all together a topic on its own, and I know as soon as I mention something you will not look to understand but to attack. It is to be made clear that the Conquest was made on the Seat of Power of the Empires and not the civilians. University of Chicago Professor Fred Donner's quote from his book "Early Islamic Conquests," should suffice for the moment: " "[T]here is the possibility that the ideological message of Islam itself filled some or all of the ruling elite with the notion that they had an essentially religious duty to expand the political domain of the Islamic state as far as practically possible; that is, the elite may have organized the Islamic conquest movement because they saw it as their divinely ordained mission to do so." And as I mentioned before all though the Conquests were obviously taken by war, the population were granted their rights and free will on whether to accept Islam or not. This was not to be found in the Christian conquests where there followed persecution of civilians and compulsion in accepting Christianity after their Crusades.

Peace,
Muaad

Hi Silver Rain,

I understand your point, but I must respectfully disagree with your statement that
"But even if every Muslim on the face of this planet was a vile creature causing destruction, this in no way means that Islam is a vile religion. This is what we call a Non-Sequitur. The same can be said for Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and every other Religion or Ideology."

What I mean is this. The 'goodness' (for lack of a better word) of a religion is at least partly measured by it's effects on people's behavior, because those behaviors are the result that everybody has to live with, for better or for worse. These behaviors also reflect on the Deity involved. If the teachings of a religion lead directly to death and destruction, what does it say about the Deity involved? If the basic foundations lead to destruction war and horror, why would I, as an ordinary person, want to live with followers of such a religion?

If you've read my posts, then you know that I am not automatically favoring Christianity (Crusader will attest to this). Christians and Jews have killed many in the name of their religion, which is why I don't get into 'whose religion is superior' type discussions, we all have skeletons in our closets. I am speaking in general about religions, and their effects on people. To use a political example, Karl Marx never advocated violence and envisioned a society of true equality. But the result of the extreme expression of communism led to the Soviet Union and the human rights horrors in China. thus, even though I am liberal and am a bit socialist, I see (and have seen) the results of practicing extreme Marxism; it is not pretty.

Going back to Islam, I make no statements on it because I know too little. Muslims that I know are ordinary people, some nice some annoying. I am also aware of the bad results of negative stereotyping and warped reporting in the media. But leaving this aside, if the extreme minority of Muslims turn to extreme violence, and use their beliefs to justify torturing women, why would I think positively of their beliefs (if I had nothing else to go on)?. Likewise, if all I knew of Christians was the KKK and the guy who runs the "godhatesfags" website, why would I want to be a Christian?

It is clear to me that the main reason for Muslim violence in Asia is not the religion, it is the result of people living under repressive regimes for a long time. Kings in Europe also had repressive regimes; the results were the 30 years War, centuries of bloodbaths and violence, Protestants and Catholics killing each other, and culminating in the French Revolution (after which Europeans exported the violence to Africa and Asia).
What do you think?

[Krusader]

Crusader,

You are missing the point entirely. I am not debating with you whether these things happen or not. I will openly admit I have no knowledge of them. But in your own self-righteous arrogance, you are missing the point I have stated at least twice on this message board. Let me bring it down to a 3rd grade level so that you may understand:

There are the doctrines of Islam: Pillars, Scripture, and Laws. These pillars, beliefs, and laws are perfect as they are designated by God, the Creator of the Worlds.

Then there are the Muslims: Human beings subject to inequity, imperfection, fanaticism, ignorance, and all other forms of immorality.

Conclusion: Do not judge Islam by the Muslims, but judge Islam by its Pillars, Scripture, and Laws.

Stop regurgitating the same pathetic arguments over and over again. The Muslims that are engaged in persecution and violence who are in direct violation of their own faith make up a small minority of the larger Muslim community. But even if every Muslim on the face of this planet was a vile creature causing destruction, this in no way means that Islam is a vile religion. This is what we call a Non-Sequitur. The same can be said for Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism, and every other Religion or Ideology.

This is the last time I will repeat this. After that I am putting you on ignore. Realistically, you are not even worth my time. And please for the love of God, stop copying and pasting polemic garbage from other websites (www.answering-islam.com (http://www.answering-islam.com/), www.prophetofdoom.net (http://www.prophetofdoom.net/)) to attack Islam. Do your own research and thinking for God's sake. Do yourself a favor and watch the debate between Zakir Naik and William Campbell on the Qur'an, Bible, and Science where the whole "Answering Islam" team gets a beat down: http://www.examinethetruth.com/Debate_Video.htm

The Conquest is all together a topic on its own, and I know as soon as I mention something you will not look to understand but to attack. It is to be made clear that the Conquest was made on the Seat of Power of the Empires and not the civilians. University of Chicago Professor Fred Donner's quote from his book "Early Islamic Conquests," should suffice for the moment: " "[T]here is the possibility that the ideological message of Islam itself filled some or all of the ruling elite with the notion that they had an essentially religious duty to expand the political domain of the Islamic state as far as practically possible; that is, the elite may have organized the Islamic conquest movement because they saw it as their divinely ordained mission to do so." And as I mentioned before all though the Conquests were obviously taken by war, the population were granted their rights and free will on whether to accept Islam or not. This was not to be found in the Christian conquests where there followed persecution of civilians and compulsion in accepting Christianity after their Crusades.

Peace,
Muaad

Silver Rain, since you're only a freshman I'll allow you some leeway; however, if you're going to learn to debate using such terms as "I'll bring it down to 3rd grade level so that you can undertand" are not only being disrespectful but childish.

All we have to do is look at Islam's fruit today to note that the teachings of the Quran (taken literally) are the cause of 99% of the world's conflicts at the present time. You apparently are not well acquainted with the doctrine and teachings of the Quran - I suggest you review the surahs chronologically, not according to length, and you will see a progressively militant jihadist doctrine being promulgated. You need to do some critical study - not just accept everything the proselytizers preach (for instance, that found in "Islam for Dummies" - try reading Ibn Warraq's book, "Why I am Not a Muslim.)

The Quran is not consistent in its teachings. You need to understand the doctrine of abrogation (most Sunnis accept this, at least in part), which is primarily why most "fundamentalist" Muslims can justify jihad against innocent civilians (3000 in NY in 2001, for instance) and think they're doing Allah's will.

Most Muslims you meet in America are not of the fundamentalist ilk, however most Muslims are not in America - they are in the Middle Eastern countries and Africa, and this is where we find the jihadist mentality at its worse. And their fight is not only against us - but they have deadly fights among themselves. It is a religion of violence and oppression, and is rooted in the jihadist teachings of Mohammed found in the Quran and Hadith.

And, by the way, I think it is really strange that you could possibly justify killing an individual for converting from Islam to another religion - are you posting from the free world?

[InChristAlways]

"The one who has known the religion which Allaah revealed, entered it and practised it, then rejected it, despised it and left it, is a person who does not deserve to live on the earth of Allaah and eat from the provision of Allaah. By leaving Islaam, the apostate opens the way for everyone who wants to leave the faith, thus spreading apostasy and encouraging it.

The apostate is not to be killed without warning. Even though his crime is so great, he is given a last chance, a respite of three days in which to repent. If he repents, he will be left alone; if he does not repent, then he will be killed. If the punishment for murder and espionage (also known as high treason) is death, then what should be the punishment for the one who disbelieves in the Lord of mankind and despises and rejects His religion? Is espionage or shedding blood worse than leaving the religion of the Lord of mankind and rejecting it?"

I hope that clarifies and I will continue to learn. HI SilverRain. God is the Father of Adam, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Islam believes in them as well as Jesus Christ, therefore God is the God of judaism, Islam and christianity. But scripture also says it will be His Son and a prophet just like unto Moses. Where do the muslims see a prophet other than the Lord Himself coming as in Malachi 3??????
So an Islamic would still be killed if He still believed in God but comes to believe Jesus may have been the True Son of God, the Precious Cornerstone in Isaiah 28? Those who call themselves "jews" today also practice an apostate religion condemned by God and are cursed by God to this day(malachi 2), but they do not kill those that leave the religion of judaism nor do christians. In fact, given the choice I would join Islam before I join judaism, but only if they believe Jesus was the one and only True Savior of the world, begotten by God, crucified, died and was resurrected. He is the ONLY NAME one can call upon to be saved.Isaiah 28:16 Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: "Behold, I lay in Zion a stone for a foundation, A tried stone, a precious cornerstone, a sure foundation; Whoever believes will not act hastily.
acts 4:11 "This is the 'stone which was rejected by you builders, which has become the chief cornerstone.' 12 "Nor is there salvation in any other, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved."Does Islam not believe that Jesus/the Lord was the annointed one to come and die not only for Israel's sins but for all mankind as in Malachi 3?. I pray that both the jews and muslims will get rid of both the Koran and Talmud and just stick with the sacred scriptures.Malachi 3:1 "Behold, I send My messenger, And he will prepare the way before Me. And the Lord, whom you seek, Will suddenly come to His temple, Even the Messenger of the covenant, In whom you delight. Behold, He is coming," Says the LORD of hosts. Jesus did come to the jews first as prophecied, but not to save the corrupt rulers, and according to the OT prophecies Judah and Jerusalem were to be destroyed. Do you know if muslims study the book of revelation? I and others view it as that event in the first century and is truly a God inspired book. Please feel free to PM me and we can discuss this if you like. Peace and Love be upon you my friend.ezekiel 22:17 The word of the LORD came to me, saying, 18 "Son of man, the house of Israel has become dross to Me; they [are] all bronze, tin, iron, and lead, in the midst of a furnace; they have become dross from silver. 19 "Therefore thus says the Lord GOD: 'Because you have all become dross, therefore behold, I will gather you into the midst of Jerusalem. 20 '[As men] gather silver, bronze, iron, lead, and tin into the midst of a furnace, to blow fire on it, to melt so I will gather [you] in My anger and in My fury, and I will leave [you there] and melt you. [i]21 'Yes, I will gather you and blow on you with the fire of My wrath, and you shall be melted in its midst. 22 'As silver is melted in the midst of a furnace, so shall you be melted in its midst; then you shall know that I, the LORD, have poured out My fury on you.' " 23 And the word of the LORD came to me, saying,

[ExposingIslam]

"And KILL them where ever you find them..." Quran 2:191:
http://answeringPROPHETOFDOOM.net/Islam_in_Action_Kill_Them_Where_Ever_You_Find_Them.php
Advertising is a no-no

[Dan Zebiri]

Jonathan,

The 'Wars of Apostasy' is also called he 'Ridda Wars' in islamic history.

The word ridda can be taken to mean 'apostasy' or abandoning islam.

After muhammad's (the founder of islam) death in 632 A.D., many of the pagan Quraish tribesmen whom he converted into islam - by way of force or contract, saw it NO LONGER FITTING TO CONTINUE as muslims.

So long as muhammad was alive, these tribesmen felt they had an obligation towards him (muhd) for leading them into islam. Now that he was dead, that obligation also had expired, so they reckoned.

So they began to abandon islam in droves and in huge numbers. So much so that the first islamist leader - 'caliph Abu Bakar' declared WAR on these apostates of Islam.

He declared that those who wanted to leave Islam will be punished by death, this was so that they would come back into islam, or be forced not to leave islam!

Regards, Dan.

[watsup]

Jonathan,

The 'Wars of Apostasy' is also called he 'Ridda Wars' in islamic history.

The word ridda can be taken to mean 'apostasy' or abandoning islam.

After muhammad's (the founder of islam) death in 632 A.D., many of the pagan Quraish tribesmen whom he converted into islam - by way of force or contract, saw it NO LONGER FITTING TO CONTINUE as muslims.

So long as muhammad was alive, these tribesmen felt they had an obligation towards him (muhd) for leading them into islam. Now that he was dead, that obligation also had expired, so they reckoned.

So they began to abandon islam in droves and in huge numbers. So much so that the first islamist leader - 'caliph Abu Bakar' declared WAR on these apostates of Islam.

He declared that those who wanted to leave Islam will be punished by death, this was so that they would come back into islam, or be forced not to leave islam!

Regards, Dan.

Wow, Dan Zebiri.

Any idea why Muslims wouldn't rake-up Abu Bakar's bones for public flogging - for Abu Bakar's heinuous crime of spitting, vomitting, urinating and defecating on this "there is no compulsion of religion in Islam, Islam", of his and his Mohammed and their Islam's allah?

[barnasha]

Jonathan,

The 'Wars of Apostasy' is also called he 'Ridda Wars' in islamic history.

The word ridda can be taken to mean 'apostasy' or abandoning islam.

After muhammad's (the founder of islam) death in 632 A.D., many of the pagan Quraish tribesmen whom he converted into islam - by way of force or contract, saw it NO LONGER FITTING TO CONTINUE as muslims.

So long as muhammad was alive, these tribesmen felt they had an obligation towards him (muhd) for leading them into islam. Now that he was dead, that obligation also had expired, so they reckoned.

So they began to abandon islam in droves and in huge numbers. So much so that the first islamist leader - 'caliph Abu Bakar' declared WAR on these apostates of Islam.

He declared that those who wanted to leave Islam will be punished by death, this was so that they would come back into islam, or be forced not to leave islam!

Regards, Dan.

Dan's tirade, laden with anti-Islamic jabs, is replete with mischaracterizations.

Part of these wars were against people who had not "converted" to Islam at all.

A case in point is Musaylimah who had control of central Arabia, who was a rival to Muhammad rather than an "apostate" from his tribe.

[Dan Zebiri]

Barney,

IF - big If, its a tirade 'full of mischarac..., anti-islamic blahs " etc, then PROVE THEM.

Except just quoting one little fellow who may not have convertted proves nothing.

BUT the BULK - up to 90 percent of what I wrote is true and you cannot deny them factually!

Disprove factually what I wrote POINT BY POINT if you can, barney!

Dan Z.


Dan's tirade, laden with anti-Islamic jabs, is replete with mischaracterizations.

Part of these wars were against people who had not "converted" to Islam at all.

A case in point is Musaylimah who had control of central Arabia, who was a rival to Muhammad rather than an "apostate" from his tribe.

[barnasha]

what do you mean, prove it? it's quite clear you are painting the Islamic empire in an evil light. I don't think even you want to argue against that.

in case you missed it from last post:

Part of these wars were against people who had not "converted" to Islam at all.

A case in point is Musaylimah who had control of central Arabia, who was a rival to Muhammad rather than an "apostate" from his tribe.

[Dan Zebiri]

Hi Barney,

Then can you kindly point out to me at least, WHICH of 'my sentences' below is painting "the islamic empire in an evil light" :-

The 'Wars of Apostasy' is also called he 'Ridda Wars' in islamic history.

The word ridda can be taken to mean 'apostasy' or abandoning islam.

After muhammad's (the founder of islam) death in 632 A.D., many of the pagan Quraish tribesmen whom he converted into islam - by way of force or contract, saw it NO LONGER FITTING TO CONTINUE as muslims.

So long as muhammad was alive, these tribesmen felt they had an obligation towards him (muhd) for leading them into islam. Now that he was dead, that obligation also had expired, so they reckoned.

So they began to abandon islam in droves and in huge numbers. So much so that the first islamist leader - 'caliph Abu Bakar' declared WAR on these apostates of Islam.

He declared that those who wanted to leave Islam will be punished by death, this was so that they would come back into islam, or be forced not to leave islam!

Thank you! Dan Z.

[Narnian]

Verse 4:89 gives Allah's authority to muslims to kill apostates.

an-Nisa' 004:089
‏4:89 ودوا لو تكفرون كما كفروا فتكونون سواء فلا تتخذوا منهم اولياء حتى يهاجروا في سبيل الله فان تولوا فخذوهم واقتلوهم حيث وجدتموهم ولاتتخذوا منهم وليا ولانصيرا

Literal They wished/loved if you disbelieve, as they disbelieved, so you become equal/alike. So do not take from them allies, until they emigrate in God's sake, so if they turned away, so take/punish them and fight/kill them, where/when you found them, and do not take from them an ally , and nor a supporter/savior.

Yusuf Ali They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): But take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (From what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks

Pickthal They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah; if they turn back then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them,

Arberry They wish that you should disbelieve as they disbelieve, and then you would be equal; therefore take not to yourselves friends of them, until they emigrate in the way of God; then, if they turn their backs, take them, and slay them wherever you find them; take not to yourselves any one of them as friend or helper

Hilali/Khan They wish that you reject Faith, as they have rejected (Faith), and thus that you all become equal (like one another). So take not Auliya (protectors or friends) from them, till they emigrate in the Way of Allah (to Muhammad SAW). But if they turn back (from Islam), take (hold) of them and kill them wherever you find them, and take neither Auliya (protectors or friends) nor helpers from them.

[barnasha]

Verse 4:89 gives Allah's authority to muslims to kill apostates.



response from Mohd Elfie Nieshaem Juferi


Recently, we hear Christians making strange claims about Sura’ An-Nissa’ (4):89, by saying that it is a verse meant to be applied as a punishment for apostates. The said verse is as follows

They long that ye should disbelieve even as they disbelieve, that ye may be upon a level (with them). So choose not friends from them till they forsake their homes in the way of Allah if they turn back (to enmity) then take them and kill them wherever ye find them, and choose no friend nor helper from among them.

But who are the they being referred to in the verse above? The previous verse had the answer.

“What aileth you that ye are become two parties regarding the hypocrites, when Allah cast them back (to disbelief) because of what they earned? Seek ye to guide him whom Allah hath sent astray? He whom Allah sendeth astray, for him thou (O Muhammad) canst not find a road.” (Qur’an 4:88)

It is the hypocrites being referred to (not apostates as insinuated by Christians) and in dealing with those who pretend to be Muslims on the outside, but are the enemies of Islam in reality. Such hypocrites are the ones who would aid the pagans against the Muslims. So we see the missionaries’ claims that the verse in Sura’ An-Nissa’ (4):89 refers to the punishment of apostates falls flat on their face. This is further attested to by Ibn Katheer in this tafseer of the above verse, when he says

And His [God’s] saying “They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they)” means that they (the hypocrites) wish you misguidance so as to be like them in it; and this is due only to their great animosity and hatred towards you, that’s why God said “so take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah(meaning left al-hijrah)” as said by Al-Awfy based on Ibn Abbas, and Al-Saddy said “they showed their kufr, then take them and kill them wherever you find them, “and take no friends or helpers from their ranks” means not to take any of them as allies or seek their support against the enemies of Allah as long as they are like this; then Allah excluded from them.

So, the next question is: who are the hypocrites? Hypocrites are those who take the Islamic Shahada (Confession of Faith) but do not mean it. They do so on the sole aim of trying to cause division and hatred within the Muslim ranks. Consider the following from Sura’ Al-Munafiqun (63):1, as follows:

“When the hypocrites come to thee, they say ‘We bearth witness that thou art indeed the messenger of Allah. Yea, Allah knoweth that thou art indeed his messenger, and All⨠bearth witness that the hypocrites are indeed liars.”

The above verse speaks for itself. Here, God Almighty is describing the hypocrites; they are the people who profess the Islamic faith but are lying and do not mean it. When the Prophet(P) first migrated to Madina and preached to the people there, there were some Jews and pagan Arabs who profess Islam but in fact seek to destroy the faith. Thus, the hypocrites are not synonymous with apostates as Christians are trying to claim.

And only God knows best!

[Narnian]

The previous verse had the answer.
(Qur’an 4:88)

So we return to Allah sending people astray (which contradicts Jesus' teachings and parables about finding those gone astray), which we have already discussed and concluded that no true "God" could send anyone astray.

It is the hypocrites being referred to (not apostates as insinuated by Christians) and in dealing with those who pretend to be Muslims on the outside, but are the enemies of Islam in reality. Such hypocrites are the ones who would aid the pagans against the Muslims. So we see the missionaries’ claims that the verse in Sura’ An-Nissa’ (4):89 refers to the punishment of apostates falls flat on their face.

Hypocrites, Apostates, "turning away" ..... all the same thing. Besides, what they have in common is that they are all HUMANS. We should note two facts from these verses. First, Allah himself made the "hypocrites" go astray, yet he orders them killed. Second, the Arabic verb qatala is used (root is q-t-l), and this word means exclusively to fight, kill, war, battle, or slaughter.

And His [God’s] saying “They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they)” means that they (the hypocrites) wish you misguidance so as to be like them in it; and this is due only to their great animosity and hatred towards you, that’s why God said “so take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah(meaning left al-hijrah)” as said by Al-Awfy based on Ibn Abbas, and Al-Saddy said “they showed their kufr, then take them and kill them wherever you find them, “and take no friends or helpers from their ranks” means not to take any of them as allies or seek their support against the enemies of Allah as long as they are like this; then Allah excluded from them.

Whatever the excuse for killing them ..... Allah still wants you to kill them for "being hypocrites".

In contrast Jesus says: "Love your enemy: do good to those who do bad to you."

If you can't distinguish which teaching has a higher ethical and moral value, then that would be quite sad.

So, the next question is: who are the hypocrites? Hypocrites are those who take the Islamic Shahada (Confession of Faith) but do not mean it. They do so on the sole aim of trying to cause division and hatred within the Muslim ranks. Consider the following from Sura’ Al-Munafiqun (63):1, as follows:

So you kill them for faking it? How pathetic and childish.

Thus, the hypocrites are not synonymous with apostates as Christians are trying to claim.

So, it's "good" to kill those who said the Shahada and didn't mean it, yet not those who said the shahada and meant it and later revoked it? How ambiguous is that? How do you know if the first group were not sincere and if the second group were sincere, since you can't mind read them?

And Allah claims to be clear :ahem:

And only Allah knows best!

Now that statement is highly questionable :ahem:

In summary: Allah sends them astray .... and then orders you to kill them.

"Allah" obviously didn't learn anything from Jesus.

[barnasha]

So we return to Allah sending people astray (which contradicts Jesus' teachings and parables about finding those gone astray), which we have already discussed and concluded that no true "God" could send anyone astray.



Hypocrites, Apostates, "turning away" ..... all the same thing. Besides, what they have in common is that they are all HUMANS. We should note two facts from these verses. First, Allah himself made the "hypocrites" go astray, yet he orders them killed. Second, the Arabic verb qatala is used (root is q-t-l), and this word means exclusively to fight, kill, war, battle, or slaughter.



Whatever the excuse for killing them ..... Allah still wants you to kill them for "being hypocrites".


that's not what the Quran says.

God wants you to kill people who are about to kill you, because even though you don't like it, you must act in self defense, and for the sake of justice.

we understand that a sensationalist, radical, anti-Islamic propagandist like you might not accept that.

but let it be stated for the record.


In contrast Jesus says: "Love your enemy: do good to those who do bad to you."


so you wanna do good to the terrorists? give aid and comfort to bin Laden? is that it?


So you kill them for faking it? How pathetic and childish.


no, i think you're supposed to kill the ones who are terrorists and killing your people. aren't you misconstruing this to fit your ends?

I would be absolutely SHOCKED to hear a logical, fair explanation for an answer to this instead of some whitewashing opinionated statement such as "you're wrong, muslims are evil, blah blah blah." or "the quran says to kill people you don't like"


So, it's "good" to kill those who said the Shahada and didn't mean it, yet not those who said the shahada and meant it and later revoked it? How ambiguous is that? How do you know if the first group were not sincere and if the second group were sincere, since you can't mind read them?


Killing people is forbidden unless in a time of war, when those people are attacking you (self defense).

It is quite clear to those who read the Quran as it was meant to be read, but perhaps not to those who scour it for anything that could be taken out of context.

This is surely no argument but you might be compelled to back up yours.


And Allah claims to be clear :ahem:


your smugness is really indicative of your personality...



In summary: Allah sends them astray .... and then orders you to kill them.


you don't seem to have faithfully and honorably examined the material, so I would doubt anything you summarized, since it would be subject to fitting into your agenda, which seems to be hateful or angry.... no offense but that's the vibe we all get from you

you are either holier-than-thou (arrogant), hateful, or both.

ignorance is one thing. slander and hate is another


"Allah" obviously didn't learn anything from Jesus.

The omniscient cannot learn

Jesus existed, that which exists depends on that which creates.

[Narnian]

God wants you to kill people who are about to kill you

There is absolutely nothing in that verse that says you are to only kill "those who kill you". In that verse you are to kill HYPOCRITES ..... which include apostates, fakes, liars etc. A hypocrite is not synonymous with a murderer. All humans, who are imperfect, have been hypocrites at some time in their life.

Definition:

hyp·o·crite www.dictionary.com
–noun 1. a person who pretends to have virtues, moral or religious beliefs, principles, etc., that he or she does not actually possess, esp. a person whose actions belie stated beliefs.
2. a person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, esp. one whose private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.

No murderers there :uhoh:

we understand that a sensationalist, radical, anti-Islamic propagandist like you might not accept that.

Back to the old name-calling again? :eh:

so you wanna do good to the terrorists? give aid and comfort to bin Laden? is that it?

Whoa .... now that's that's an obvious Slippery Slope fallacy. You jumped from "hypocrite" to "Bin Laden" in one breath. :lol:

no, i think you're supposed to kill the ones who are terrorists and killing your people. aren't you misconstruing this to fit your ends?

Jesus Christ does not teach this.

I would be absolutely SHOCKED to hear a logical, fair explanation for an answer to this instead of some whitewashing opinionated statement such as "you're wrong, muslims are evil, blah blah blah." or "the quran says to kill people you don't like"

Now who's the hypocrite here? Allah would have you killed! You are putting words in my mouth that I have never said. Show me where I have stated that "muslims are evil". Islam is evil .... muslims are humans like any other.

Killing people is forbidden unless in a time of war, when those people are attacking you (self defense).

The Quran, as shown numerous times, is very ambiguous on this. You are allowed to crucify, kill, mutilate everyone from "non innocents" (whover they are) to "hypocrites" which can mean anyone ... to "mischief makers" which can also mean anyone.

It is quite clear to those who read the Quran as it was meant to be read, but perhaps not to those who scour it for anything that could be taken out of context.

The Quran is not even vaguely clear. It is highly ambiguous and contradictory. :uhoh:

your smugness is really indicative of your personality...

you are either holier-than-thou (arrogant), hateful, or both.

ignorance is one thing. slander and hate is another


This is not debate: this is just childish name-calling.

May I remind you that my character flaws - of which there are many - are not the subject of this debate.

The omniscient cannot learn

'Allah' obviously missed the teachings of Jesus.

[barnasha]

Anyone who would argue that obeying God (Islam) is evil, is DEFINITELY evil.

So I'm sure you didn't mean that.

Allah knew the teachings of Yeshua before they came out of his mouth, since the omniscient already knows everything.

Abrahamic faith has to do with Allah, the omniscient, something you seem to overlook which makes me wonder how you are even on the right subject here...

[Narnian]

Anyone who would argue that obeying God (Islam) is evil, is DEFINITELY evil.

Anyone who consistently uses logical fallacies, insults, name-calling and false dilemmas has probably lost the argument a long, long time ago. :eh:

[barnasha]

There is absolutely nothing in that verse that says you are to only kill "those who kill you".


sure... THATS BECAUSE YOURE ONLY LOOKING AT THAT VERSE. a verse is just a arbitrary section of the text. it is not meant to be a free-standing document.


Whoa .... now that's that's an obvious Slippery Slope fallacy. You jumped from "hypocrite" to "Bin Laden" in one breath. :lol:


It is not a fallacy, since it is not a logical argument.

Stop using the "that's a fallacy" stuff.


Jesus Christ does not teach this.


So, how do you think we should treat the Taleban or bin Laden? With peace only? After 9/11, should the USA's response be a peaceful one, diplomatic and out-reaching?

Honestly, I would have much respect for your understanding of Jesus' teachings if you did see it that way.


Now who's the hypocrite here? Allah would have you killed! You are putting words in my mouth that I have never said. Show me where I have stated that "muslims are evil". Islam is evil .... muslims are humans like any other.


How is Islam evil, since it is by definition the abstention from evil?
Islam is defined as what Jesus taught, in the Quran. If you choose to use another definition, you should make that more clear,

At least 2 billion people see it a lot differently than you, and that's fine, just communicate what you are saying so they will understand you.

"Islam is peace" as George Bush said.


The Quran, as shown numerous times, is very ambiguous on this. You are allowed to crucify, kill, mutilate everyone from "non innocents" (whover they are) to "hypocrites" which can mean anyone ... to "mischief makers" which can also mean anyone.


Actually every time you try to show that it is by quoting it out of context, hardly fair or correct.

Since the Quran teaches non-violence and peace, your assertion above is a "logical fallacy" of sorts.



In summary: Allah sends them astray .... and then orders you to kill them.

your smugness is really indicative of your personality...

you are either holier-than-thou (arrogant), hateful, or both.

ignorance is one thing. slander and hate is another

This is not debate: this is just childish name-calling.


May I remind you that my character flaws - of which there are many - are not the subject of this debate.


Unfortunately, it is not merely name calling. For your sake, I wish it were.

Everyone is ignorant to some extent.

And if you don't want to come off as smug, don't use emoticons and sarcasm in your posts... just a suggestion.

It is addressing your behavior in your slander against Islam.

be reasonable, if you want anyone but people full of hate to be on your side.

or is it your respective hate which unites you?



'Allah' obviously missed the teachings of Jesus.

That which does not exist as a creature does not need any "teaching"

[Narnian]

sure... THATS BECAUSE YOURE ONLY LOOKING AT THAT VERSE. a verse is just a arbitrary section of the text. it is not meant to be a free-standing document.

There is no context to the Quran. It does not read like a story, as the Bible does. The before and after verses offer no redemption. Allah clearly asks you to KILL hypocrites.

Stop using the "that's a fallacy" stuff.

Well, please use proper debating techniques instead of fallacies and name calling.

So, how do you think we should treat the Taleban or bin Laden? With peace only? After 9/11, should the USA's response be a peaceful one, diplomatic and out-reaching?

Hunt down Bin Laden and kill him if you can't take him prisoner (the much better option), BUT do not call this "holy" or "from God". Self defense is common sense and should never have been sanctified by any god. Anyone with half a brain knows this. Even dinosaurs knew how to defend themselves. You do not need a holy book to tell you how to do it.

What you DO need from heaven are teachings that build virtues like love, insight, wisdom, altruism and forgiveness .... because these are not instinctual, and in fact go against our instincts to want to get revenge. Allah tells you to take revenge. The Bible tells you not to.

Islam appeals to one's animal instincts.
Christianity appeals to one's desire to transcend animal instinct.

How is Islam evil, since it is by definition the abstention from evil?

I have already addressed that.

Islam is defined as what Jesus taught, in the Quran. If you choose to use another definition, you should make that more clear,

The Jesus of Islam is not the same as the Jesus of Christianity. This has already been shown. We can start a thread on it if you like. We already have a thread on the similarities of Islam and Christiantiy, and very little was found.

At least 2 billion people see it a lot differently than you, and that's fine, just communicate what you are saying so they will understand you.

Back to fallacies again? Appeal to Numbers.

"Islam is peace" as George Bush said.

Faulty Appeal to Authority.

Since the Quran teaches non-violence and peace, your assertion above is a "logical fallacy" of sorts.

Killing and mutilation is not non-violence to me. If Allah was serious about non-violence then he should not have sent such a cruel and violent "prophet", and he should have left out all those violent verses from the quran.

It is addressing your behavior in your slander against Islam.
be reasonable, if you want anyone but people full of hate to be on your side.
or is it your respective hate which unites you?

Whoever said anything about hating people? I love people, including you. I love humanity .... that's why I hate Islam: the ideology ... because it is anti-human.

That which does not exist as a creature does not need any "teaching"

How can you be sure it wasn't the devil who spoke to Muhammad in the cave? From reading the Quran, it sounds more like an evil spirit behind it than the True Father God.

[Dan Zebiri]

Barnasha,

Deny these facts if you want: After Muhamad's death, his successors literally obeyed his call to geographical expansionism of islam's tyranny and hegemonism.

These countries fell to islamic imperialism : Palestine, Syria, Egypt, Tunisia, Morrocco, Libya, etc.

If as you claim, islam only fights in 'self-defence', then tell us WHAT WERE THE MILITARY PROVOCATIONS of these countries listed above against the successors of islam/caliphs, to justify them fighting against and over-running these countries to make them islamic states??

I don't think that you woulc be able to give a rational or meaningful answer to the above
question.

As you also abandoned many of my thoughtful replies to you, which you eventually slink away from, one the latest being this:

http://theologyweb.com/campus/showpost.php?p=2112291&postcount=54

Typical of islamists who cannot reply to their own propoganda. Pity.

Dan.



sure... THATS BECAUSE YOURE ONLY LOOKING AT THAT VERSE. a verse is just a arbitrary section of the text. it is not meant to be a free-standing document.



It is not a fallacy, since it is not a logical argument.

Stop using the "that's a fallacy" stuff.



So, how do you think we should treat the Taleban or bin Laden? With peace only? After 9/11, should the USA's response be a peaceful one, diplomatic and out-reaching?

Honestly, I would have much respect for your understanding of Jesus' teachings if you did see it that way.



How is Islam evil, since it is by definition the abstention from evil?
Islam is defined as what Jesus taught, in the Quran. If you choose to use another definition, you should make that more clear,

At least 2 billion people see it a lot differently than you, and that's fine, just communicate what you are saying so they will understand you.

"Islam is peace" as George Bush said.



Actually every time you try to show that it is by quoting it out of context, hardly fair or correct.

Since the Quran teaches non-violence and peace, your assertion above is a "logical fallacy" of sorts.



Unfortunately, it is not merely name calling. For your sake, I wish it were.

Everyone is ignorant to some extent.

And if you don't want to come off as smug, don't use emoticons and sarcasm in your posts... just a suggestion.

It is addressing your behavior in your slander against Islam.

be reasonable, if you want anyone but people full of hate to be on your side.

or is it your respective hate which unites you?




That which does not exist as a creature does not need any "teaching"

[Jesus Maranatha]

According to both Muslim and Christian accounts, Caliph Umar ( one of the companions / disciples of Muhammad ) entered the city of Jerusalem , humbly walking beside a donkey upon which his servant was sitting .

He is said to have been given the keys to the city by the Orthodox Christian Patriarch Sophronius, after conducting the peace treaty known as the Treaty of Umar.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umar

According to the Syriac Church , Caliph Umar and the Muslims treated the Christians of Jerusalem better than the Byzantines who considered them heretics :

http://www.syrianorthodoxchurch.org/.../articles.html

"

The church was weakened by the forceful persecution from both empires, namely the Byzantine and the Persian, who for generations had threatened its existence because of its geographical position. Through the enormous number of martyrs, whom the church produced through the centuries, . ………….

….Only through the campaigns of Islam in the first half of the 7th century was it possible to free the East from the Byzantines and the Persians.

This happened with the help of the members of the Syrian Church; the original inhabitants of Syria of whom one part was of Aramaic origin who inhabited these areas for generations and another part was of Arabic origin. When the Arab Muslims marched into Syria they were welcomed by the Syrians who saw the new rulers as saviors who freed them from the yoke of the Byzantines because the Byzantines tried by force to assimilate them into the Byzantine Church.

This was the church of the empire and membership in it would have meant compulsorily acceptance of the resolutions of Chalcedon: that Christ had two natures, the human eating, drinking and feeling pain and the divine making miracles. This would have been a denial of the dogma of their church fathers. The Syrians were also able through the cooperation with the Arab Muslims to retain their ecclesiastical dogma, the Antiochian See, their churches, monasteries, ecclesiastical inheritance and their liturgy.


The Position of the Syrians Toward the Islamic Conquest >From the above it becomes clear that the religious conflicts in the Christian church, the attempts of the Byzantine powers to force the issues of the council of Chalcedon upon the other churches by force, to throw its members in prison, to kill them, to ban them and to drive them out alienated the Syrian Christians.

All these unchristian deeds only sowed hate and aversion in the hearts of the Syrians against the Byzantine powers. The Persian powers in their empire oppressed both West and East Syrians in general to force them under tyrannical policies and Zoroastrian beliefs. Therefore the Syrians under the Byzantine and Persian powers saw the Islamic conquerors as liberators and not as occupiers.

The Syrians put great hope in them, not only because the Muslims liberated them from their religious trouble but also because they relieved the Syrians of the burdensome taxes that were placed on their backs. They said, "Praise be to God, who delivered us from the unjust Byzantines and who put us under the rule of the just Muslim Arabs."

The above article is taken straight from the Syriac Church's website , and is part of the following article :

"A Short Overview of the Common History of the Syrian Church with Islam through the Centuries"
Patriarchal Journal
Vol. 33 - June 1995 - No. 146, pp. 322-344.
Maren Tyedmers Hange assisted with this translation.


For three hundred years until the mad Fatimid Caliph Al-Hakim came to power , there was no systematic , mass persecution of Christians in the Holy Land . More , Al-Hakim persecuted EVERYONE , even Muslims :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Hakim_bi-Amr_Allah


" Al-Ḥākim issued a series of seemingly arbitrary laws, including the prohibition of Mulūkhiyya, a characteristic Egyptian dish, grape eating, watercress eating as well as the prohibition of chess. He forbade the fisherman from catching any fish that had no scales and forbade people from selling or eating such fish.

In 1005, he ordered the killing of all the dogs in Egypt and discarded them in the desert. Also, he forced the inhabitants of Cairo to work at night and sleep at morning, and whoever caught violating his orders was punished severely. In 1014, he ordered women not to go out at all, and ordered the shoemakers not to make any women's shoes.

He killed his tutor Abul Qasim Said ibn Said al-Fariqi and the great majority of his viziers. Some of them served as physicians as well. Al-Ḥākim also killed many other officials, highranking as well as lowly ones. These include viziers, judges, poets, physicians, bathhouse keepers, cooks, cousin, soldiers, Jews, Christians, intelligence gatherers, and even cut the hands of female slaves in his palace. In some cases, he did the killing himself. In 1009, he destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, then under Fatimid control. The church was later rebuilt by his successor with help from the Byzantine Empire.

He made Christians and Jews wear a black hat. He made the Christians wear wooden crosses, half a meter long by half a meter wide, around their necks. The Jews were ordered to wear a wooden calf hanging around the neck, so as to remind them of the sin of the golden calf. "

There is no evidence whatsoever , that the Fatimid Caliph Al-Hakim ever massacred Christians and Jews as some Roman Catholic Historians claim . Yes , he was a terrible ruler , compared to earlier Muslim Caliphs ( he was the exception not the rule ), however he did nothing compared to what the crusaders did once they took control of Jeruslam :


"Once the Crusaders had breached the outer walls and entered the city almost every inhabitant of Jerusalem was killed over the course of that afternoon, evening and next morning. Muslims, Jews, and even a few of the Christians were all massacred with indiscriminate violence. Many Muslims sought shelter in the Al-Aqsa Mosque, where, according to one famous account in Gesta, "...the slaughter was so great that our men waded in blood up to their ankles..."

According to Raymond of Aguilers "men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins." The chronicle of Ibn al-Qalanisi states the Jewish defenders sought refuge in their synagogue, but the "Franks burned it over their heads", killing everyone inside.[1] The Crusaders circled the flaming building while singing "Christ, We Adore Thee!".[2] Tancred claimed the Temple quarter for himself and offered protection to some of the Muslims there, but he could not prevent their deaths at the hands of his fellow crusaders. The Fatimid governor Iftikhar ad-Daula withdrew to the Tower of David, which he soon surrendered to Raymond in return for safe passage for himself and bodyguards to Ascalon. [3]

The Gesta Francorum states some people managed to escape the siege unharmed. Its anonymous author wrote, "When the pagans had been overcome, our men seized great numbers, both men and women, either killing them or keeping them captive, as they wished."[4] Later it is written, "[Our leaders] also ordered all the Saracen dead to be cast outside because of the great stench, since the whole city was filled with their corpses; and so the living Saracens dragged the dead before the exits of the gates and arranged them in heaps, as if they were houses. No one ever saw or heard of such slaughter of pagan people, for funeral pyres were formed from them like pyramids, and no one knows their number except God alone." [5]

The above was taken from : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Jerusalem_(1099)

Abdallah Muhammad

[Dan Zebiri]

I address this querstion to you - slave of Muhamad, and Barnasha


Since Barnasha has chosen to slink away - as usual from this question, maybe 'abdullah muhd' -who I call slave of muhammad, can rescue him:

Deny these facts if you want: After Muhamad's death, his successors literally obeyed his call to geographical expansionism of islam's tyranny and hegemonism.

These countries fell to islamic imperialism : Palestine, Syria, Egypt, Tunisia, Morrocco, Libya, etc.

If as you claim, islam only fights in 'self-defence', then tell us WHAT WERE THE MILITARY PROVOCATIONS of these countries listed above against the successors of islam/caliphs, to justify them fighting against and over-running these countries to make them islamic states BY FORCE AND BY CONQUEST??

I don't think that you would be able to give a rational or meaningful answer to the above question. Abd-Muhd, dont rave and rant pages and mouthfuls of irrelevant polemics, but address the question above SQUARELY! :sigh:

Dan.

[Jesus Maranatha]

Unlike him , you can all read my last post where I present what the Syriac Church has to say about the Muslim "invaders" of the Holy Land . They were welcomed as "saviors" due to the persecution they had experienced from Byzantium and the Persians . It's all there for everyone to examine . He of course conveniently ignores it .


.The first hostilities between the Muslims and Byzantium , began when the Prophet Muhammad's messenger to the Ghassan tribe (a Byzantine governate ), Al-Harith bin Umayr Al-Azdi, was tied up and beheaded (Al-Mubarakpuri, Ar-Raheeq Al-Makhtum, p. 383).

The killing of this diplomat marked the beginning of hostilities between Byzantium and the Muslims . The Prophet sent an armed force to confront the tribe, and Byzantium brought in reinforcements resulting in the Battle of Mut'ah , which ended in defeat for the Muslims.

After this , subsequent battles were fought and the Muslims emerged victorious.

Hostilities between the Muslims and Persians only began after the Persian emperor Chosroe ordered his governor in Yemen Badham, to kill the Prophet Muhammad pbuh . His efforts were thwarted when the latter accepted Islam.

After the death of the prophet , the Holy Land , Syria and Iraq were taken from Byzantium and the Persians , who were also at war with each other . After many years of suffering persecution at the hands of Byzantium and Persia , the Christians of the Holy Land , and Syria , welcomed the Muslims and saw them as "saviors" and liberators . They treated the Christians much better than Byzantium or the Persians . You can read more about this in my last post .

Abdallah Muhammad

[Jesus Maranatha]

The old link to the Syriac Church's article titled :

"A Short Overview of the Common History of the Syrian Church with Islam through the Centuries"

Is now here at this new location :

http://www.syrianorthodoxchurch.org/library/articles.html

and here :

http://syriacchristianity.org/PZakka/ShortHisIslam.htm

[Dan Zebiri]

That in no way absolves the Muslims of the 7th Century from unprovoked Islamic hegemonism and social, religious, cultural and political imperialism!

What about the other non-islamic states - Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Libya etc which were all non-islamic UNTIL they were stepped over forcefully by islamic hegemonism!

DId these states above, provoke islam (militaristically or otherwise) in ANY WAY?

DOES disatisfaction with OTHER colonialists warrant and permit ANOTHER invasion and conquest by ANOTHER imperialist, hegemonist military force - the armed islamists?

Thats a cop-out and irrational response by the slave of muhamad, besides being a lame excuse for militaristic islamic expansionism!

Dan Z.

[Dan Zebiri]

No, I might add, islam does not just "fight back in 'self-defence'"!

It is an hegemonistic, expansionist aggressor as evidenced by the unprovoked attacks warred by the first 3-4 caliphs on the non-muslim states around Arabia.

Dan.

[Jesus Maranatha]

You wrote :

That in no way absolves the Muslims of the 7th Century from unprovoked Islamic hegemonism and social, religious, cultural and political imperialism!

Sounds like America and the West to me ……….

You wrote :

What about the other non-islamic states - Egypt, Tunisia, Morocco, Libya etc which were all non-islamic UNTIL they were stepped over forcefully by islamic hegemonism! DId these states above, provoke islam (militaristically or otherwise) in ANY WAY?

Egypt was under Byzantium which was at war with the Caliphate . After the Muslims liberated the Syriac Christians of the Holy Land ( read what the Syrian Christians of the Holy Land say about the Muslim "invaders" and how they liberated them from Byzantine oppression ) , they moved towards the other Byzantine colonies . That was the order of the day , and it is likewise the way things are done now .


You wrote :

DOES disatisfaction with OTHER colonialists warrant and permit ANOTHER invasion and conquest by ANOTHER imperialist, hegemonist military force - the armed islamists?
Thats a cop-out and irrational response by the slave of muhamad, besides being a lame excuse for militaristic islamic expansionism!

:violin:

I don't see you griping about the Israelites slaughtering pagans in the bible or the injustices the Christian Europeans have committed through out the centuries , till this day . Muslims were much more humane and level headed , than the Europeans , this is admitted by all historians , other than those with degrees from Oral Roberts ( ORU ) .

Your pupu posts aren't worth more of my time .

[Dan Zebiri]

I and too can care much less for your infantile, puerile & polemical postings which are nothing more than islamic polemics and dawaganda - propoganda, QM...! :-)))

You have absymally FAILED to convince us of islam's wonderful 'universal solution' for mankind.

Dan Z.

[barnasha]

I and too can care much less for your infantile, puerile & polemical postings which are nothing more than islamic polemics and dawaganda - propoganda, QM...! :-)))

You have absymally FAILED to convince us of islam's wonderful 'universal solution' for mankind.

Dan Z.

He succeeded in refuting your hateful attacks, though, which was his point...

[Dan Zebiri]

Not really, barney. He was merely regurgitating rehashed islamic polemics and dawaganda, which not points whatsoever, and I need not waste my time to respond to those.

Much of his dawaganda and polemics have already been addressed AND soundly refuted in :

www.answering-islam.org (http://www.answering-islam.org)

Dan.

You on the other hand, have still not yet dealt with my rebuttal to your canned polemics against the Incarnation of Christ!





He succeeded in refuting your hateful attacks, though, which was his point...

[pannenberg]

The Wars of Apostasy were the greatest proof of Mohammed's falseness, because the "apostates", so-called by the warlord Abu Bakr, were people who knew the truth about Islam: it was a cult and a criminal gang rolled into one. The subjugated, terrorized Arabs had had enough and tried to get out at the first opportunity. Unfortunately, Mohammed's followers were the sort of men who chopped a head off just to test the sharpness of their sword and they proceeded to slay tens of thousands of Arabs, then plunder them and turn their wives and children into slaves. Where Christianity and Judaism base themselves on reverence for the image of God, and sonship of humanity, Islam sees humans as no more than slaves whose goal is to go paradise where they in turn will be waited on by thousands of slaves. Something is very wrong here. Isaac was indeed the legitimate son and Ishmael the son of the slave. Mohammed glorified slavery. Who wants to be a slave when one can be "child of God and inheritor" of His kingdom? Islam cannot survive in this period where freedom of expression and availability of information are destroying the monopoly of the mullahs to keep people in a mental jail.

[Narnian]

Great first post Pannenberg.

Islam cannot survive in this period where freedom of expression and availability of information are destroying the monopoly of the mullahs to keep people in a mental jail.

Spot on. It's only a matter of time, and I think that is why we have seen the increase in Islamic violence (apart from more obvious reasons like increase in availability, efficiency and lower cost of WMDs). It is Islam's weakness in action as it lies dying.

[rogue06]

Originally posted by Quranic Mind
Unlike him , you can all read my last post where I present what the Syriac Church has to say about the Muslim "invaders" of the Holy Land . They were welcomed as "saviors" due to the persecution they had experienced from Byzantium and the Persians . It's all there for everyone to examine . He of course conveniently ignores it .
I think it's fair to say that similar experiences by both sides could be recounted all night. For example, Ibn Jubayr, a Spanish Moslem on hajj to Mecca in 1184, passed through the Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem and wrote that the Moslems living there were treated so well and paid fewer taxes than Moslems did in neighboring Islamic- held lands, that he feared that the people would begin to convert to Christianity enmass.

As I said, we can point to things like this all night and not prove anything.

[pannenberg]

This thread was supposedly about the Wars of Apostasy but "Quranic Mind" decided to tell us instead how great life is under sharia law, thus avoiding the whole issue of the slaughters of Arabs that took place under the saintly Abu Bakr. The strategy of "Quranic Mind" appears to be to use the fallacy of changing the subject. :eek:

It is preposterous that anyone ever liked or could like his life under sharia. The dhimmi contract is totally medieval: 1. Dhimmis live in a second class condition within the society they inhabit.
2. Dhimmis are not allowed to vote or hold public office.
3. Dhimmis must pay a steep tax, called the Jihza, and do so under humiliating conditions: they must pay the tax in person where they are either spit on or slapped. The tax is a heavy financial burden, but if you can't pay it, you're dead. Some dhimmis who couldn't pay were forced to turn over their children as payment. The children were then raised as Muslims.
4. Dhimmis must dress differently than Muslims, e.g. with broad cloth belts, shoes of different color on opposite feet, or no shoes at all, and must shear their forelocks (the front part of their hair) so their dhimmi status is obvious.
5. Dhimmis must give way to Muslims on the sidewalk or street.
6. Dhimmis must give up their seat in any public place if a Muslim wishes to sit.
7. Dhimmis cannot build a house that is higher than Muslim houses in his neighborhood.
8. Dhimmis can only work in menial jobs like street sweeping or manual labor.
9. Dhimmis cannot renovate their churches or synagogues, so when they fall into disrepair they continue to deteriorate.
10. Dhimmis cannot display any symbol of their religion in public, like a cross, nor ring church bells or sing too loudly in their churches or synagogues lest they offend Muslims.
11. Dhimmis must house and feed any Muslim who passes their door for three days.
12. Dhimmis cannot criticize Islam, the Qur'an or Muhammad, under penalty of death or imprisonment.
13. Dhimmis cannot prevent any of their family members from converting to Islam.
14. Dhimmis cannot attempt to convert any Muslim to their religion.
15. Dhimmi men cannot marry Muslim women, but Muslim men can marry Dhimmi women.
16. Dhimmis cannot be witnesses in court against Muslims.
17. Dhimmis cannot own or carry any weapons.
18. Dhimmis cannot fight with or injure any Muslim, even in self defense, under penalty of death.
19. Dhimmis are subject to execution for apostasy against the Prophet of the Qur'an. (This provision was often abused. When a Muslim wanted a dhimmi's land or house, he simply had to state the dhimmi had insulted the Prophet. Since a Muslim's word was always accepted over that of a dhimmi, the dhimmi's unjust execution or imprisonment was assured.)
20. In many cases, dhimmi children are not allowed to attend state schools or universities.


In the theocratic republic of Iran with its frequent beheadings of dangerous rebellious teenagers, where there are apparently "no homosexuals" and where no one is aware of slaughter of six million Jews by Adolf Hitler, there is a growing movement of opposition which sooner or later will explode. Apparently, young men and women have not forgotten that in the time of the evil Shah, they were able to go out in the evening and have a relaxing drink in a cafe. Tehran was a sort of Paris of the East. (So untolerable, to Quranic Mind, we must suppose.) Well, I for one, am very fond of Paris, of London as well, and I had rather QM not change them into a copy of Tehran or Karachi. Go back there and live in Khomeini's paradise. It's as a good as it gets.

The trouble with this sort of Islamism, is that it bogged down a thousand years ago, when they closed the books on further thought.

[rogue06]

rigially posted by pannenberg
It is preposterous that anyone ever liked or could like his life under sharia. The dhimmi contract is totally medieval: 1. Dhimmis live in a second class condition within the society they inhabit.
2. Dhimmis are not allowed to vote or hold public office.
3. Dhimmis must pay a steep tax, called the Jihza, and do so under humiliating conditions: they must pay the tax in person where they are either spit on or slapped. The tax is a heavy financial burden, but if you can't pay it, you're dead. Some dhimmis who couldn't pay were forced to turn over their children as payment. The children were then raised as Muslims.
4. Dhimmis must dress differently than Muslims, e.g. with broad cloth belts, shoes of different color on opposite feet, or no shoes at all, and must shear their forelocks (the front part of their hair) so their dhimmi status is obvious.
5. Dhimmis must give way to Muslims on the sidewalk or street.
6. Dhimmis must give up their seat in any public place if a Muslim wishes to sit.
7. Dhimmis cannot build a house that is higher than Muslim houses in his neighborhood.
8. Dhimmis can only work in menial jobs like street sweeping or manual labor.
9. Dhimmis cannot renovate their churches or synagogues, so when they fall into disrepair they continue to deteriorate.
10. Dhimmis cannot display any symbol of their religion in public, like a cross, nor ring church bells or sing too loudly in their churches or synagogues lest they offend Muslims.
11. Dhimmis must house and feed any Muslim who passes their door for three days.
12. Dhimmis cannot criticize Islam, the Qur'an or Muhammad, under penalty of death or imprisonment.
13. Dhimmis cannot prevent any of their family members from converting to Islam.
14. Dhimmis cannot attempt to convert any Muslim to their religion.
15. Dhimmi men cannot marry Muslim women, but Muslim men can marry Dhimmi women.
16. Dhimmis cannot be witnesses in court against Muslims.
17. Dhimmis cannot own or carry any weapons.
18. Dhimmis cannot fight with or injure any Muslim, even in self defense, under penalty of death.
19. Dhimmis are subject to execution for apostasy against the Prophet of the Qur'an. (This provision was often abused. When a Muslim wanted a dhimmi's land or house, he simply had to state the dhimmi had insulted the Prophet. Since a Muslim's word was always accepted over that of a dhimmi, the dhimmi's unjust execution or imprisonment was assured.)
20. In many cases, dhimmi children are not allowed to attend state schools or universities.
These restrictions were put in place under the caliph Umar ibn al-Khattah (ruled 634-644AD), recorded in the Koranic commentary of Ibn Kathir and are still part of Sharia law today. The purpose is to make the "dhimmis" "feel themselves subdued" in accordance with Koran 9:29. Enforcement has waxed and waned over the centuries, but the laws have always remained in place. In a 2002 sermon at a mosque in Mecca, Sheikh Marzouq Salem al-Ghamdi called for the odious dhimma restrictions be enforced on "the infidels liv among the Muslims," and that, "if they violate these conditions, they have no protection."

One further note, pannenberg is correct about how dhimmis were demeaned and struck about the face and neck by Islamic tax officials as they paid the extortion money jizya. The 13th century Shafi'i jurist an-Nawawi stated that, "the ifidel who wishes to pay his tax must be treated with disdain by the collector. The collector remains seated and the infidel remains standing in front of him, his head bowed and his back bent. The infidel personally must place the money on the scales, [i]while the collector holds him by the beard, and strikes him on both cheeks." It should be noted that the striking of the person paying the jizya continued as part of the payment process into the 20th century.

[pannenberg]

Yes, dear Moslems, you've convinced me: dhimmitude is wonderful and so much better than liberal democracy! Please, when do we begin?

[rogue06]

In order to appreciate just how much dhimmis are considered second class citizens (or more accurately, third or fourth class) in Islamic lands, one needs to appreciate the fact that killing a Muslim in pure self-defense is punishable by death for a non-Muslim. And further, if a Muslim wantonly butchers an entire family of non-Muslims what is the result? In modern Iran such an act barely rates a misdemeanor! As the Sufi leader Sheikh Sultanhussein Tabandeh (who wielded great influence in fashioning the jurisprudence for the nation after the ayatollahs took over) put it: "Since Islam regards non-Muslims as on a lower level of belief and conviction, if a Muslim kills a non-Muslim... then his punishment is not retaliatory death, since the faith and conviction he possesses is loftier than that of the man slain. A fine only can be extracted from him"

[barnasha]

In order to appreciate just how much dhimmis are considered second class citizens (or more accurately, third or fourth class) in Islamic lands, one needs to appreciate the fact that killing a Muslim in pure self-defense is punishable by death for a non-Muslim. And further, if a Muslim wantonly butchers an entire family of non-Muslims what is the result? In modern Iran such an act barely rates a misdemeanor! As the Sufi leader Sheikh Sultanhussein Tabandeh (who wielded great influence in fashioning the jurisprudence for the nation after the ayatollahs took over) put it: "Since Islam regards non-Muslims as on a lower level of belief and conviction, if a Muslim kills a non-Muslim... then his punishment is not retaliatory death, since the faith and conviction he possesses is loftier than that of the man slain. A fine only can be extracted from him"

Where did you hear this nonsense?

This looks like something you had to have gotten from a propagandist website. From which one did you hear this slander?

Either you have an ulterior motive or you are being misled.

Murder is illegal in Islamic law.

[rogue06]

Originally posted by barnasha
Where did you hear this nonsense?

This looks like something you had to have gotten from a propagandist website. From which one did you hear this slander?

Either you have an ulterior motive or you are being misled.

Murder is illegal in Islamic law.
Confirmation can be found for instance at Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dhimmi): "In all schools of Islamic jurisprudence, except the Hanafi, the maximum punishment for the murder of a dhimmi, if perpetrated by a Muslim, was the payment of blood money only"

[rogue06]

You may also want to take a look at the Umdat al-Salik, a legal manual from the Sunni Shafi'i school of Islamic jurisprudence. It clearly states that "retaliation is obligatory" against someone who commits willful murder, except in the case of a "Muslim killing a non-Muslim," in which case retaliation is not permitted.

[pannenberg]

One can't really "slander" Islam by quoting its own documents and giving the references. If a Moslem feels uncomfortable about double standards towards infidels, that just shows he is feeling some cognitive dissonance. Good. True Islam is so uncomfortable with the UDHR that Moslem countries created their own version, removing strategic parts such as the provision that protected people who want to keep their head while adopting another religion or none. We all know there is a double standard towards infidels, especially the most "offensive" of polytheists (to Islam), the Hindus . Admitting this will enhance credibility and rapport in this discussion. Further to the "slander" issue: the preoccupation with "honour" makes truth and factual information inferior to image. "Slander" in this context means anything that is an uncomfortable fact that adversely affects the "image" of the subject of the remark. In the West, we are entitled to our own opinion, but not to our own facts. In the West, "slander" must be factually false, not merely inconvenient as in "honour" cultures. If an innocent girl is raped, she must be killed for the sake of making the dishonour to the family go away.

Any similarity to notions of equality that are adopted in Islamic countries is more likely to come from contact with Western liberal democracies and also from the aforementioned UDHR. Traditional Islamic texts cannot be twisted to approve of the idea of equality for non-Moslems.

This brings me back to my contention that the basis of Islam is the "slavery vocabulary". Everyone is a slave in the Islamic food chain. The greatest in Islam has the most slaves. In Christian theology, the reverse is true, the greatest is the "servant of all". At the bottom of the Islamic food chain are the "najis" infidels and dhimmis. "A dhimmi should know his place."

This is usually the last frustrated response of the Moslem apologist, who nine times out ten, I have found knows almost nothing of the real Islamic theology, or perhaps he is permitting himself to commit a little white "taqiyya".

[rogue06]

Quite telling is the fact that unlike nearly every culture Islam has no equivalent of the "Golden Rule" probably because they don't beleve in treating non-Muslims with decency.

[pannenberg]

Theologically, I would like to relate rogue's "no Golden Rule" observation to the Wars of Apostasy. You are quite right that Islam has no Golden Rule that applies to infidels. A Moslem merely has a duty not to hurt another Moslem, but Infidels are outside this "brotherhood" contract and are supposed to be humiliated so they will "feel subdued" in an appropriate master/slave relationship (appropriate because Allah said so).

This master/slave paradigm is reflected throughout Islam and also in the Wars of Apostasy. The issue of this period was the basic one of "honour" versus "shame". The caliph's honour was harmed by the failure to submit to his theocratic despotism. The caliphs wanted above all for others to confess their divine right to rule, but merely submitting to it without heart-felt assent, was enough to preserve honour. This is one reason why democracy is unacceptable to real Islam: dhimmis and others could not be made to feel subdued and to "know their place" in the master/slave relationship.

It has been pointed out that the honour/shame paradigm is basic to Islamic countries as the guilt/innocence paradigm is basic in the West.

By killing infidels and subduing them, the Islamists' basic urge is to establish his honour by implementing the master/slave paradigm over the Dar al Harb, thus making all dhimmis the slaves of the slaves of the slave of Allah.

For some excellent articles on shame cultures:

HONOR AND SHAME IN A MIDDLE EASTERN SETTING
http://nabataea.net/h&s.html

SHAME, THE ARAB PSYCHE, AND ISLAM
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2005/08/shame-arab-psyche-and-islam.html

[barnasha]

Quite telling is the fact that unlike nearly every culture Islam has no equivalent of the "Golden Rule" probably because they don't beleve in treating non-Muslims with decency.

Who told you that?

The prophet Muhammad won over people to his following by treating them well. At that time, only him and his wife were muslims.

Your statement is indicative of either your hatred for or ignorance of Islam. I hope for your sake that it is the latter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity#Islam





Confirmation can be found for instance at Wikipedia: "In all schools of Islamic jurisprudence, except the Hanafi, the maximum punishment for the murder of a dhimmi, if perpetrated by a Muslim, was the payment of blood money only"


Said "confirmation" is destroyed in the exact same paragraph.

The Hanafi school, which represents the majority of Sunni Muslims, however, believes that the murder of a dhimmi must be punishable by death, citing a hadith according to which Muhammad ordered the execution of a Muslim who killed a dhimmi.

You are only seeking to confirm what you want to be true. Please stop arguing your opinions and learn about Islam.

Your crusade against it does not help anyone, it actually hurts you more than anything, since you are playing politics rather than understanding the problems facing humanity and doing something to help.


anyway,

please tell me,

WHO WAS IT that told you muslims "do not believe" in treating non muslims with decency?

[rogue06]

Who was it that told you Muslims do have an equivalent to the Golden Rule?

[barnasha]

Who was it that told you Muslims do have an equivalent to the Golden Rule?

All people who have a sense of love of humanity 'have' the Golden Rule.

The Golden Rule is something which describes a particular frame of mind, that of wishing for your brother what you wish for yourself.

The prophets of Islam all taught this, from Moses all the way to Muhammad.

The Torah, Gospel, and Quran all contain this teaching - both implicitly and explicitly.

[Narnian]

For some excellent articles on shame cultures:

HONOR AND SHAME IN A MIDDLE EASTERN SETTING
http://nabataea.net/h&s.html

SHAME, THE ARAB PSYCHE, AND ISLAM
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/2005/08...and-islam.html

Pannenberg,
These articles are a fascinating insight. Thanks for sending them. The points they make about guilt based vs shame based cultures makes total sense, and I can relate it personally, since my ex was a muslim and I have been immersed in that culture. It helps me understand my ex so much more. He once told me; "If you only have enough money to either spend on a meal or a new set of clothes, buy the clothes, because noone can see that you are hungry, but everyone can see your new clothes". He thought that was great, but I said; "this advice makes you false". He got upset about that and couldn't understand what I meant.

The bottom line is that guilt based cultures are ethically superior. And my question is; will shame based cultures survive as our world gets smaller and guilt based culture (ie of the internet) predominates?

[pannenberg]

Slave vocabulary in Koran is a breach of the Golden Rule

The basis of the Koran is its "slave vocabulary" which renders the Golden Rule irreconcilable with real Islam. There is no example of the Golden Rule in the Koran, a great oversight, if Allah approves of it. The many texts denouncing infidels and encouraging good Moslems to attack them (164 jihad verses), speak for themselves. A good Moslem is simply not permitted to treat an infidel as himself. A good Moslem cannot at the same time be "harsh against unbelievers" and treat them respectfully. The following quote makes Islam's position on reciprocity totally clear.

"Islam is the only religion that does not adhere to the Golden Rule. The closest that Islam comes to this principle is a hadith that says:

"None of you [truly] believes until he wishes for his brother what he wishes for himself." Number 13 of Imam "Al-Nawawi's Forty Hadiths."

This brotherhood, however, does not extend to everyone. Quran (9:23) states that the believers should not take for friends and protectors (awlia) their fathers and brothers unless they love Infidelity above Islam. In fact, there are many verses that tell the Muslims to kill the unbelievers and be harsh with them. A clear example that Islam is not based on the Golden Rule is the verse (48:29) It says: "Muhammad is the messenger of Allah; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other.”

This is the perfect definition of fascism. There are many other verses that show the brotherhood in Islam is not universal. The rest of mankind have no rights and should not be treated in the same way that Muslims are to be treated. The entire Quran is the breach of the Golden Rule. Quran tells Muslims to slay the unbelievers wherever they find them (2:191), do not befriend them (3:28), fight them and show them harshness (9:123), and smite off their heads (47:4)."

I am continuously amazed by Moslem apologists who call us to “learn about Islam” whenever the tenets of Islam are accurately quoted (chapter and verse). They no doubt are asking us to “submit to Islam” and accept (as they have) that all learning on the Koran was perfected and ceased at about 1200 AD. Perhaps they are assuming their own knowledge of Islam (growing up in it) is a replacement for book learning and rigorous scientific analysis using modern techniques. Perhaps, they fear as well that the traditional view of Koran cannot survive such rigorous analysis. So far, it cannot, so they try to close down the question.

But, the same thousand-year-old taqlid answers regurgitated over and over do not replace reasoned discourse. “Taqlid” (blind following without intellectual activity) is tediously combined with unsubstantiated ranting, demands for unqualified “respect” and threats. These are the tactics of the Mob and have no place in an erudite academic discussion, such as Theology Web aspires to.

Such threats simply prove my point that the “slave vocabulary” is the subtext in the Islamic mind. (It seems Islam is today one of the last remaining “honour/shame cultures” .) Honour is lost when slaves rise up. The way to deal with uppity slaves (dhimmis) who talk back to their masters is to beat them into submission so the honour and superiority of Moslems can be seen to be restored; in effect forcing the dhimmis to kiss the hand that beats them.

I am grateful that we were all able to observe this behaviour.

[pannenberg]

Dear Narnian,

There are many fine points brought out in your posting.

Firstly, you say "guilt-based cultures are superior" and cite the story of the flashy clothing. Nothing could illustrate this point better! You said, "This makes you false" But you could have said, "This is hypocrisy." In fact, the shame-based culture proactively encourages hypocrisy and endemic lying that is necessary to cover up any flaw perceived by others (real or imagined). It is indeed all about "image".

As a generality, the honour/shame paradigm was decisively repudiated in the West at the Nuremberg trials, but it resurfaced recently in Serbia (remember Serbia spent 500 years immersed in the shame-based culture of Islam). We saw the master/slave paradigm there shamefully turned back against the Moslems of the former Yugoslavia. The trials of these conscienceless criminals is on-going.

Your personal experience of the honour/shame paradigm is invaluable, making you one of the select few who understand the cultural issues both affectively and intellectually.

Lastly, intellectual understand of the ethical superiority of the guilt-based culture brings with it the responsibility to expose the shame-based system and "free the slaves" of this mentality.

[pannenberg]

Dear Bar Nasha and rogue,

It appears neither has answered the other's questions.

I should like first to respond to "who said Moslems don't believe in treating dhimmis decently?" The short answer is the Koran and Hadiths and Islamic theology. "Humiliation of dhimmis" is a hallowed and pious act by good, practicing Moslems. The dhimmi is expected to be grateful, as the purpose of humiliation is to help him see the error of his ways (i.e. to see the intent of the abuse...for his own good...and then kiss the hand that beats him). The following quote explains:

Humiliation of dhimmis
Islamic law stipulates that dhimmis must be belittled for their rejection of Islam; humiliating them was an act of piety, a fulfillment of divine will. Bernard Lewis comments that

The Qur'an and tradition often use the word dhull or dhilla (humiliation or abasment) to indicate the status God has assigned to those who reject Mohammad, and in which they should be kept for so long as they persist in that rejection.[33]

Ibn Kathir wrote that dhimmis must feel “disgraced, humiliated and belittled. Therefore, Muslims are not allowed to honor the people of the dhimma or elevate them above Muslims, for they are miserable, disgraced and humiliated."[34] Echoing a saying attributed to Muhammad (Sahih Muslim, book 26, #5389), Hasan al-Kafrawi, an 18th century scholar, comments that “if you (Muslims) encounter one of them (dhimmis) on the road, push him into the narrowest and tightest spot”.[35] European travelers to the Middle East describe humiliations and insults of Christians and Jews on the streets until the mid-19th century. As recommended by many Muslim scholars, most notably al-Zamakhshari and al-Nawawi, jizya was often collected in a humiliating procedure:

[T]he collector remains seated and the infidel remains standing..., his head bowed and his back bent. The infidel must place money on the scales, while the collector holds him by his beard and strikes him on both cheeks.

The ritual stemmed from the traditional interpretation of Sura 9:29 that jizya was not merely a tax, but also an expression of submission.[36] Abu Yusuf, however, argues against mistreatment of dhimmis during jizya collection, saying that "they should be treated with leniency".[37] The procedure was not followed in the Ottoman Empire, where jizya was collected by representatives of dhimmi communities themselves.[38]

The second part of this reply (answering the question: Who told you Muslims... have the Golden Rule?)...

Obviously, the Golden Rule is not found in either the Koran or Hadiths. It is found in every religion, but nowhere in Islam. The good, pious Moslem is forbidden to treat a dhimmi as a Moslem or even wish him "Salam aleichum". An infidel cannot even be called "brother". There is no commandment to treat a dhimmi benevolently only "harshly". The more benevolent "Meccan" ayahs have all been abrogated by the "harsh" Medina ayahs. In the Islamic food chain, the dhimmi is allowed to exist as a source of revenue for the Islamic state, but he should "know his place" in the master/slave relationship. However, real tolerance should have a positive side that goes far beyond the absence of harassment. I will start to believe in Islamic tolerance when I see Jewish cabinet ministers in Iran, Egypt and Saudi Arabia. Moslems who believe they should treat the infidels as their brothers have probably been reading the Sermon on the Mount and the story of the Good Samaritan.:ahem:

Killing Infidels is a small matter to us.”

Tabari IX: 69

[Narnian]

In fact, the shame-based culture proactively encourages hypocrisy and endemic lying that is necessary to cover up any flaw perceived by others (real or imagined). It is indeed all about "image".

You've nailed it.

I am still thinking about that article 24 hours later; and I think I will re-read it tonight.

I was also intrigued about the writer's comments on contemporary western culture (and new age religions), that by ditching Christian teachings we are returning to shame based thinking. With new age religions (which I've studied in some depth) you are responsible for your own salvation, like Islam, and when you don't succeed - as noone ever does on their own strength - you are shamed.

Confirms, once again, that Christianity is superior.

As a generality, the honour/shame paradigm was decisively repudiated in the West at the Nuremberg trials

Would you please provide more details about this?

Your personal experience of the honour/shame paradigm is invaluable, making you one of the select few who understand the cultural issues both affectively and intellectually.

It does give you an insight into the thinking, and I can see huge blind spots in both sides; from the westerner (both christian and "christian-atheist") looking at Islam with Christian lenses, and the muslim looking at Christianity with muslim lenses.

How come you know so much about this? I mean, what is your background? :eh:

[barnasha]

Dear Bar Nasha and rogue,

It appears neither has answered the other's questions.

I should like first to respond to "who said Moslems don't believe in treating dhimmis decently?" The short answer is the Koran and Hadiths and Islamic theology. "Humiliation of dhimmis" is a hallowed and pious act by good, practicing Moslems. The dhimmi is expected to be grateful, as the purpose of humiliation is to help him see the error of his ways (i.e. to see the intent of the abuse...for his own good...and then kiss the hand that beats him). The following quote explains:



Your blatantly anti-Islamic rants could hardly pass off as an argument. Your obsession with the concept of a 'dhimmi', a non-muslim who willingly lives in an Islamic state, shows that you are extremely familiar with anti-Islamic literature of the 20th century.

The problem is you are very familiar with propagandish material and are quick to make claims about Islam, yet you know very little about Islam and its source material. Your arguments are instead comprised of lots of non sequiturs and assertions that are wholly unsupported, e.g.:

"'Humiliation of dhimmis' is a hallowed and pious act by good, practicing Muslims"

The previous statement is actually one of opinion - yours. It shows the depth of ignorance and hatred you have for anything related to Islam.

Your statements are offensive and crude, and even if they passed for a well-formed argument as one might expect in a junior high term paper, they would even then not be worth addressing.

In making your arguments, I discourage you from continuing in your disingenuous efforts to purposefully malign Islam, and make arguments which are more sensible and are not meant expressly to slander other peoples ignorantly.

[pannenberg]

OK Bar Nasha,
Thank you for the challenge:

Surah 5:33 Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam.
Surah 8:12 Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Qur’an
Surah 2:191 Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them
Surah 3:85 Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable
Surah 8:7 “Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: ‘Wipe the infidels out to the last.’”
Surah 8:39 “So, fight them till all opposition ends and the only religion is Islam.”
Qur'an 108:3 "For he who insults you (Muhammad) will be cut off."
Qur'an 67:1 "Blessed is He who holds the reins of Kingship."
Qur'an:8:67 "It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughter in the land."
Surah 8:65 The unbelievers are stupid; urge the Muslims to fight them
Aya 2.171 “Disbelievers are deaf, dumb and blind, and they have no sense”.
Surah 4:15 “If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four witnesses from amongst you against them; if they testify, confine them to houses until death [by starvation] claims them.”
Surah 9:123 Make war on the infidels living in your neighbourhood
Surah 9:5 When opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you catch them
Surah 9:29 Kill the Jews and the Christians if they do not convert to Islam or refuse to pay Jizya tax
Surah 9:30 The Jews and the Christians are perverts; fight them
Surah 9:28 The infidels are unclean; do not let them into a mosque
Surah 22:19 Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water; melt their skin and bellies
Surah 47:4 Do not hanker for peace with the infidels; behead them when you catch them
Surah 3:28 Muslims must not take the infidels as friends
Surah 8:60 Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorise the infidels
Surah 8:59 “The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them. They are your enemy and Allah’s enemy.”
Surah 5:44 "And whosoever does not judge by what Allâh has revealed, such are the Kâfirûn."
Surah 48:29 Muhammad is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another.
Qur'an 33:57 "Those who speak negatively of Allah and His Apostle shall be cursed."
Tabari IX:69 "He who believes in Allah and His Messenger has protected his life and possessions from us. As for those who disbelieve, we will fight them forever in the Cause of Allah. Killing them is a small matter to us." (This must be the worst one.)
Bukhari:V4B52N220 "Allah's Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror.'"
Ishaq:315 "It was so criminal, men could hardly imagine it. Muhammad was ennobled because of the bloody fighting. I swear we shall never lack soldiers, nor army leaders. Driving before us infidels until we subdue them with a halter above their noses and a branding iron. We will drive them to the ends of the earth. We will pursue them on horse and on foot. We will never deviate from fighting in our cause. We will bring upon the infidels the fate of the Ad and Jurhum. Any people that disobey Muhammad will pay for it. If you do not surrender to Islam, then you will live to regret it. You will be shamed in Hell, forced to wear a garment of molten pitch forever!"

...a truly loving book filled with loving messages...

By the way, "bar nasha" is the title Jesus gave himself. Is there something we should know about your true identity?

My dear friend, far from proving I hate Islam, I believe that your comments and the self-declared revelations above prove Islam hates me.

You still haven't given a single reference (not one) that proves Islam recommends kindness to those outside its own group.

Oh, and one more thing...no one would "willingly" become a dhimmi. The master/slave paradigm is asserting itself unconsciously. I personally would be ashamed to associate myself with the verses from the Koran and Hadith quoted above. Their extreme cruelty contradicts all human decency. Where is the Golden Rule with regard to infidels? Do please give us the reference.:blush:

[pannenberg]

Dear Narnian, Thank you for your kind compliments. I am delighted that someone is motivated (because of my posting) to truly dig in to this problem of collective narcissism that we see in mass movements and the individuals that buy into them.

I am impressed with the brilliant insight you shared about the New Age-ists shame culture. Wow! Brilliant. Ethics and morality (absent) in the New Age movement are replaced by tree-hugging and various other taboos and superstitions, such as feng shui, the art of orienting your bed and not using the number 4 in a street address! Islam replaces the notion of ethics with "permitted" and "taboo". There is almost no sense of "sin" as Christians feel it. The New Age movement, as well as Nazism are forms of gnosticism. Gnosticism's chief error is the abandonment of historicity and thus abandonment of reason. Science and superstition are placed on equal footing and superstition comes out ahead in case of a conflict between the two! Drinking the "right" kind of water, or eating the "right" combination of foods is more important than telling the truth, not cheating, etc. An action isn't bad if you are not caught. I often fear that a new totalitarianism could be lurking to sweep the New Agers off their feet and send them goose-stepping towards another false Utopia. The first move of mass movements is thus always to reject history. Islam does this by building upon the denial of the historicity of Hebrew Bible and New Testament . To do this, they had to invent a counterstory. Most of the Hadiths are not believed to be factual, but inventions of warring Shia and Sunni parties to prove the other side wrong. Nazism made a similar move by combining Norse mythology, Blavatsky's theosophy and the latest atomic science producing a collective criminal narcissism that vowed to impose its malignant hatred of the "other" over the world (the master/slave paradigm once again). If you are not aware of the Nuremberg trials in which the principal Nazi leaders were tried and sentenced, please see www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/nuremberg/nuremberg.htm

Near the end of WW II, the Allies created the United Nations, NATO and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Moslem countries could not assent to the UDHR, because it demanded total equality for women and Jews and total freedom of religion (which is apostasy to a Moslem and a capital offence requiring beheading). Because of the slaughter of six million Jews, five million Christians, untold numbers of Gypsies, the mentally ill, crippled, and others, the defence of religious freedom and freedom of speech are two of the strongest concerns in the UDHR. Both are completely incompatible with true Islam, which demands both life and death control of its members and control of thought and information, in order to preserve the master/slave and honour/shame paradigms. Masters come before slaves. Honour comes before facts Thus, tailoring or suppressing the facts is an approved procedure, since the "Group" cannot be seen to be in the slightest error, thus losing face.

I personally am a Christian layman with an interest in theology and world events. Having personally witnessed a number of malignant narcissists over the years, I am keenly aware of the inner rage and hatred of others that is their true motivation. Malignant narcissistic personality disorder explains the cold hearted killings of Mohammed which are fully revealed in the Hadiths without a hint of shame or self-consciousness on the part of the writers. They were honour killings. Aisha said, "His eye wept for no one." The same could be said about Adolf Hitler and his henchmen. They had no shame about murder committed for the honour of the group. When asked how he could allow the killing of innocent Jewish children whose parents dearly loved them, Adolf Eichmann (the author of the "Final Solution") said (without any shame whatsoever), "But they were Jewish children."

That is the true face of malignant narcissism. Narcissists have no shame when they hurt others. Anyone who can defend such things is beyond human decency.



"Aslan is on the move." :wink:

[rogue06]

Originally posted by barnasha
Who told you that?

The prophet Muhammad won over people to his following by treating them well. At that time, only him and his wife were muslims.

Your statement is indicative of either your hatred for or ignorance of Islam. I hope for your sake that it is the latter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethic_of_reciprocity#Islam


Said "confirmation" is destroyed in the exact same paragraph.

The Hanafi school, which represents the majority of Sunni Muslims, however, believes that the murder of a dhimmi must be punishable by death, citing a hadith according to which Muhammad ordered the execution of a Muslim who killed a
dhimmi.

You are only seeking to confirm what you want to be true. Please stop arguing your opinions and learn about Islam.

Your crusade against it does not help anyone, it actually hurts you more than anything, since you are playing politics rather than understanding the problems facing humanity and doing something to help.

anyway,

please tell me,

WHO WAS IT that told you muslims "do not believe" in treating non muslims with decency?
Your citation only confirms that many Muslim legal scholars do hold that if a Muslim murders a non-Muslim that it is little more than a minor infraction only punishable by a fine. It is clear that the Hanafi school is the exception here and not the rule. Further, my original post on this issue was specifically about Iran, which is a Shia state and not controlled or much influenced by Sunni opinion on the matter. One would think that a good Muslim such as yourself could distinguish betwen Shia and Sunni.

Btw, as to your ridiculous comment about "Muhammad won over people to his following by treating them well" needs to be addrssed. Was he winning people over and treating them well when he led bloody raids against the Quraysh after they rejected his claims and he scurried off to Medina (does the Battle of Badr ring a bell)? Or when he was attacking the Jews at Banu Qaynuqa? Or when he was ordering the assassination of the poet K'ab bin Al-Ashraf who insulted him? What about his attacks on the Hawazin and Thaqif tribes that were done in order to convert or destroy them? Or how about the military expedition against the Byzantines in Tabuk? No, barnasha. Mohammed was a man of war who claimed that Allah commanded him to pick up the sword in order to spread the faith.

[pannenberg]

An addition to rogue's well-researched posting:
Mohammed did treat some people very well, i.e. the heads of clans, by bribing them with more than a year's pay each (and promises of further booty in the future) for joining his military organization. The Hadiths report that this was perceived by rank-and-file mujehadin as "unfair" favouritism and deeply resented.

[moose7237]

OK Bar Nasha,
Thank you for the challenge:

Hello and Peace be to you friend,
I can't stand by and see someone just try and criticize the Quran without anyone defending it. Why did you not quote any of these verses in context???

Surah 5:33 Maim and crucify the infidels if they criticize Islam.

criticize??? No not at all. Lets see what type of person this verse applies to:
[005:033] The punishment of those who wage war against God and His Apostle, and strive with might and main for mischief through the land is: execution, or crucifixion, or the cutting off of hands and feet from opposite sides, or exile from the land: that is their disgrace in this world, and a heavy punishment is theirs in the Hereafter;

[005:034] Except for those who repent before they fall into your power: in that case, know that God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

Ok so you have a problem with someone being punished who wants to wage war against God and his apostle and strives to make mischief in the land??? I certainly don't. Also, those who repent after they see themselves in the wrong are to be forgiven. Besides, this doesn't say anything about infidels. In fact, a Muslim would receive the same punishment if he waged war against God and his apostle and strived to make mischief.

Surah 8:12 Terrorize and behead those who believe in scriptures other than the Qur’an

lets see who started this battle:
[008:019] (O Unbelievers!) if ye prayed for victory and judgment, now hath the judgment come to you: if ye desist (from wrong), it will be best for you: if ye return (to the attack), so shall We. Not the least good will your forces be to you even if they were multiplied: for verily God is with those who believe!

Quite clear that the unbelievers are the ones who attacked the Muslims. All they had to do was just want peace and the Muslims would give it to them as this verse states:

[008:061] But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things).

I think this is quite clear, if the enemy wants peace, as 8:19 states that they were on the offensive, the Muslims would give it to them.

Surah 2:191 Slay the unbelievers wherever you find them

had you read in context, you would see why it says slay the unbelievers in this cause:

002:190] Fight in the cause of God those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for God loveth not transgressors.

[002:191] And slay them wherever ye catch them, and turn them out from where they have Turned you out; for tumult and oppression are worse than slaughter; but fight them not at the Sacred Mosque, unless they (first) fight you there; but if they fight you, slay them. Such is the reward of those who suppress faith.

[002:192] But if they cease, God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful.

[002:193] And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.

So you have a problem with the Muslims killing oppressors??? And you have a problem with the Muslims giving peace to those who want peace???

Surah 3:85 Any religion other than Islam is not acceptable

[003:085] If anyone desires a religion other than Islam (submission to God), never will it be accepted of him; and in the Hereafter He will be in the ranks of those who have lost (All spiritual good).

[003:086] How shall God Guide those who reject Faith after they accepted it and bore witness that the Apostle was true and that Clear Signs had come unto them? but God guides not a people unjust.

This talks about the people who testified that Islam was the right religion and then apostated, so God will not guide them. Quote the context!!!

Surah 8:7 “Allah wished to confirm the truth by His words: ‘Wipe the infidels out to the last.’”

where does any translation say "wipe the infidels out to the last"??? Read 8:7 and what it says:

[008:007] Behold! God promised you one of the two (enemy) parties, that it should be yours: Ye wished that the one unarmed should be yours, but God willed to justify the Truth according to His words and to cut off the roots of the Unbelievers;-

Refer to 8:19 as to why Allah wants to cut their roots off. THEY STARTED THE BATTLE. Also refer to verse 8:61 to see that Muslims are willing to grant them peace if they wanted peace.

Surah 8:39 “So, fight them till all opposition ends and the only religion is Islam.”

[008:039] And fight them on until there is no more tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in God altogether and everywhere; but if they cease, verily God doth see all that they do.

so you have a problem with the Muslims fighting against oppression??? Refer to 8:19 again to see who started the war and 8:61 to see that the muslims would give them peace if they wanted it. The Muslims were being persecuted so of course they should fight.


Qur'an 108:3 "For he who insults you (Muhammad) will be cut off."

cut off from what???

[108:003] For he who hateth thee, he will be cut off (from Future Hope).

Future hope, another translation says from mercy. I have no problem with this, for if a person doesn't believe in Jesus to be his lord would not go to heaven.

Qur'an 67:1 "Blessed is He who holds the reins of Kingship."

[067:001] Blessed be He in Whose hands is Dominion; and He over all things hath Power;-

[067:002] He Who created Death and Life, that He may try which of you is best in deed: and He is the Exalted in Might, Oft-Forgiving;-

that "HE" refers to God. I see no problem with this.

Qur'an:8:67 "It is not fitting for any prophet to have prisoners until he has made a great slaughter in the land."

[008:067] It is not fitting for an apostle that he should have prisoners of war until he hath thoroughly subdued the land. Ye look for the temporal goods of this world; but God looketh to the Hereafter: And God is Exalted in might, Wise.

These prisoners, lets not forget, are the evil ones who persecute the Muslims and started this war, not women or children or any other innocent person.

[008:070] O Apostle! say to those who are captives in your hands: "If God findeth any good in your hearts, He will give you something better than what has been taken from you, and He will forgive you: for God is Oft-Forgiving, Most Merciful."

Muhammad did not abuse these oppressors either or beat them.

Surah 8:65 The unbelievers are stupid; urge the Muslims to fight them

I honestly do not know where you are getting this stuff, where does it say anything about being stupid or urging the Muslims to fight them???

[008:065] O Apostle! rouse the Believers to the fight. If there are twenty amongst you, patient and persevering, they will vanquish two hundred: if a hundred, they will vanquish a thousand of the Unbelievers: for these are a people without understanding.


Aya 2.171 “Disbelievers are deaf, dumb and blind, and they have no sense”.

No this is not literal it is metaphorical.

[002:171] The parable of those who reject Faith is as if one were to shout Like a goat- herd, to things that listen to nothing but calls and cries: Deaf, dumb, and blind, they are void of wisdom.

Why are you trying to deceive?

Surah 4:15 “If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, take the evidence of four witnesses from amongst you against them; if they testify, confine them to houses until death [by starvation] claims them.”

[004:015] If any of your women are guilty of lewdness, Take the evidence of four (Reliable) witnesses from amongst you against them; and if they testify, confine them to houses until death do claim them, or God ordain for them some (other) way.

What if they repent???

[004:017] God accept the repentance of those who do evil in ignorance and repent soon afterwards; to them will God turn in mercy: For God is full of knowledge and wisdom.

There is a way out for these women, REPENT and God will forgive you.

Surah 9:123 Make war on the infidels living in your neighbourhood

[009:123] O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).

This sura refers to the conquest of Mecca, when the unbelievers(pagans especially) fought the Muslims. Read verse 9:13 to see WHO STARTED THIS WAR:

[009:013] Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Apostle, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is God Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!

Surah 9:5 When opportunity arises, kill the infidels wherever you catch them

WHY??? kill them because they began this war:

[009:013] Will ye not fight people who violated their oaths, plotted to expel the Apostle, and took the aggressive by being the first (to assault) you? Do ye fear them? Nay, it is God Whom ye should more justly fear, if ye believe!

DOES THIS REFER TO ALL PAGANS??? NOPE

[009:007] How can there be a league, before God and His Apostle, with the Pagans, except those with whom ye made a treaty near the sacred Mosque? As long as these stand true to you, stand ye true to them: for God doth love the righteous.

Surah 9:29 Kill the Jews and the Christians if they do not convert to Islam or refuse to pay Jizya tax

No, this is a punishment to those who are not Muslims to pay a tax to live in the Islamic state. And even though it is not stated, I heard in a lecture that even the Jews helped the pagans try to kill the Muslims. But if they pay the tax then there is no punishment. And it says FIGHT them, not kill them. What happens to you if you live in America and you don't pay your taxes??? You get put in jail.

Surah 9:30 The Jews and the Christians are perverts; fight them

HOW DECEIVING YOU ARE!!! This verse does not say to fight them

[009:030] The Jews call 'Uzair a son of God, and the Christians call Christ the son of God. That is a saying from their mouth; (in this) they but imitate what the unbelievers of old used to say. God's curse be on them: how they are deluded away from the Truth!

Surah 9:28 The infidels are unclean; do not let them into a mosque

Yes the pagans at the time used to worship their gods in nudity, they are not clean and should not be allowed in the SACRED Mosque.

Surah 22:19 Punish the unbelievers with garments of fire, hooked iron rods, boiling water; melt their skin and bellies

WHERE will this punishment take place and WHO will punish them? The answer is Allah will punish them in hell, not the Muslims on earth.

[022:019] These two antagonists dispute with each other about their Lord: But those who deny (their Lord),- for them will be cut out a garment of Fire: over their heads will be poured out boiling water.

Surah 47:4 Do not hanker for peace with the infidels; behead them when you catch them

Again another deception, this refers to the orders of Allah to the Muslims when they are met in a war

[047:004] Therefore, when ye meet the Unbelievers (in fight), smite at their necks; At length, when ye have thoroughly subdued them, bind a bond firmly (on them): thereafter (is the time for) either generosity or ransom: Until the war lays down its burdens. Thus (are ye commanded): but if it had been God's Will, He could certainly have exacted retribution from them (Himself); but (He lets you fight) in order to test you, some with others. But those who are slain in the Way of God,- He will never let their deeds be lost.

Surah 3:28 Muslims must not take the infidels as friends

The verse is mistranslated. You do not take the unbelievers as protectors in war.

Surah 8:60 Muslims must muster all weapons to terrorise the infidels

[008:060] Against them make ready your strength to the utmost of your power, including steeds of war, to strike terror into (the hearts of) the enemies, of God and your enemies, and others besides, whom ye may not know, but whom God doth know. Whatever ye shall spend in the cause of God, shall be repaid unto you, and ye shall not be treated unjustly.

[008:061] But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things).

I suspect you don't want to quote 8:61 do you? :sigh:

Surah 8:59 “The infidels should not think that they can get away from us. Prepare against them whatever arms and weaponry you can muster so that you may terrorize them. They are your enemy and Allah’s enemy.”

ya what happens if the enemy wants peace???

[008:061] But if the enemy incline towards peace, do thou (also) incline towards peace, and trust in God: for He is One that heareth and knoweth (all things).

Surah 5:44 "And whosoever does not judge by what Allâh has revealed, such are the Kâfirûn."

No problem with that verse.

Surah 48:29 Muhammad is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another.

Why are they tough on the unbelievers??? Because the unbelievers are filled with rage at the muslims!!! Why don't you quote the whole verse???

[048:029] Muhammad is the apostle of God; and those who are with him are strong against Unbelievers, (but) compassionate amongst each other. Thou wilt see them bow and prostrate themselves (in prayer), seeking Grace from God and (His) Good Pleasure. On their faces are their marks, (being) the traces of their prostration. This is their similitude in the Taurat; and their similitude in the Gospel is: like a seed which sends forth its blade, then makes it strong; it then becomes thick, and it stands on its own stem, (filling) the sowers with wonder and delight. As a result, it fills the Unbelievers with rage at them. God has promised those among them who believe and do righteous deeds forgiveness, and a great Reward.

I would be tough on people who are filled with rage against me.

Qur'an 33:57 "Those who speak negatively of Allah and His Apostle shall be cursed."

[033:057] Those who annoy God and His Apostle - God has cursed them in this World and in the Hereafter, and has prepared for them a humiliating Punishment.

[033:057] Surely (as for) those who speak evil things of Allah and His Apostle, Allah has cursed them in this world and the here after, and He has prepared for them a chastisement bringing disgrace.

[033:057] Those who hurt God and His Messenger -- them God has cursed in the present world and the world to come, and has prepared for them a humbling chastisement.

I got no problem with this verse. Those people who speak negatively are usually people with bad mouths, instead of asking the Muslims about their prophet, for example: "Why did Muhammad marry a 9 year old" or "how accurate is the hadiths that claim Muhammad married a 9 year old" They will just jump and say "Muhammad is a pedophile"(God forbid)

Tabari IX:69 "He who believes in Allah and His Messenger has protected his life and possessions from us. As for those who disbelieve, we will fight them forever in the Cause of Allah. Killing them is a small matter to us." (This must be the worst one.)

This contradicts the Quran. "there is no compulsion in religion". Also if you read sura 9, the Muslims didn't kill ALL the pagans only those who fought them, therefore this hadith is false by verse 9:7 and 2:156 I believe, and sura al Kafirun. In Nahjul Balagha, Imam Ali ibn Abi Talib states "don't fight anyone unless they wish to fight you" which the Quran states, and he says do everything you can to establish peace before fighting.

Bukhari:V4B52N220 "Allah's Apostle said, ‘I have been made victorious with terror.'"
Ishaq:315 "It was so criminal, men could hardly imagine it. Muhammad was ennobled because of the bloody fighting. I swear we shall never lack soldiers, nor army leaders. Driving before us infidels until we subdue them with a halter above their noses and a branding iron. We will drive them to the ends of the earth. We will pursue them on horse and on foot. We will never deviate from fighting in our cause. We will bring upon the infidels the fate of the Ad and Jurhum. Any people that disobey Muhammad will pay for it. If you do not surrender to Islam, then you will live to regret it. You will be shamed in Hell, forced to wear a garment of molten pitch forever!"

This is false as well, because Jews and Christians can go to heaven according to the Quran.

[barnasha]

Your citation only confirms that many Muslim legal scholars do hold that if a Muslim murders a non-Muslim that it is little more than a minor infraction only punishable by a fine.

It is clear that the Hanafi school is the exception here and not the rule. Further, my original post on this issue was specifically about Iran, which is a Shia state and not controlled or much influenced by Sunni opinion on the matter. One would think that a good Muslim such as yourself could distinguish betwen Shia and Sunni.


I do not think you have shown that any of the Maliki, Hanbali, or Shafi' schools consider murder of a non-muslim resident of an Islamic state ("dhimmi") as a "minor infraction only punishable by a fine"

It is not clear, therefore, except inasmuch as you consider it clear, whether or not that is based on a sound understanding of Islamic law and history.

You are making this a political issue though, Iran is a state based on Islam with their own ideas, whatever decisions they make - whether or not they say it is based on Islam - is their own course of action and any problems in the way they govern people are of their own doing.

The government is not Islam, it is a government made of Muslims.

This is actually a critical part of fiqh - no matter what the madhhab considers to be correct, it is their own choice. You can criticize the madhhabs all you want, and I would be the first to join you, but you should understand the difference between Islam and the schools of thought which base themselves on it, and then the governments and legal systems based on that.

Your calling me a 'good muslim' is a personalization of the issue, whether or not I am a muslim has nothing to do with this; I have put in many hours of study in Islamic law, history, religion, etc.

I will call you out on your lack of distinction of Islam, because one must properly distinguish between the deen (Islam, the spiritual religion), madhhab (worldly school of thought or worldly religion), legal implementation (i.e. shari'a-based legal code), political systems based on this, and actual implementations of governments.

So if you will, feel free to clarify your arguments with the above in mind.



Btw, as to your ridiculous comment about "Muhammad won over people to his following by treating them well" needs to be addrssed. Was he winning people over and treating them well when he led bloody raids against the Quraysh after they rejected his claims and he scurried off to Medina (does the Battle of Badr ring a bell)? Or when he was attacking the Jews at Banu Qaynuqa? Or when he was ordering the assassination of the poet K'ab bin Al-Ashraf who insulted him? What about his attacks on the Hawazin and Thaqif tribes that were done in order to convert or destroy them? Or how about the military expedition against the Byzantines in Tabuk? No, barnasha. Mohammed was a man of war who claimed that Allah commanded him to pick up the sword in order to spread the faith.

It seems you have cherry picked a few instances where the character of the prophet Muhammad could be portrayed in a bad light. Why are you actively seeking situations which could be used to portray this person in a negative light, rather than making concessions as to the vast amount of historical data we have of the prophet Muhammad? It seems as if you are assassinating someone's character, using an almost emotional response, rather than making any sort of clear argument.

In fact, this entire paragraph seems like a wordy stating of your opinion.

Why did you not address the fact that muhammad did in fact gain a very large supporting base, without resorting to war? Why do you not point out the fact that Muhammad and his following were the ones who were attacked, by the Quraysh? Either you do not know, or you are willfully omitting the very part of history which I was addressing,

If you continue to obscure the parts of history which do not suit you, you will appear dubious or at least unknowledgeable. Or if you are not familiar with early Islamic history I invite you to do some reading.

[Narnian]

The prophet Muhammad won over people to his following by treating them well.

So did Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, David Koresh, Jim Jones, Idi Amin, Saddam Hussein, and 1000s of other charismatic leaders. In fact, if they didn't "win people over" they would never have been able to manipluate them.

[rogue06]

Originally posted by moose7237

Ok so you have a problem with someone being punished who wants to wage war against God and his apostle and strives to make mischief in the land??? I certainly don't.

I would think that would depend on what you mean by that. For too many Muslims that often means daring to resist them when they swoop down on an area killing and looting and forcing the survivors to convert.

[rogue06]

Originally posted by barnasha

You are making this a political issue though, Iran is a state based on Islam with their own ideas, whatever decisions they make - whether or not they say it is based on Islam - is their own course of action and any problems in the way they govern people are of their own doing.

The government is not Islam, it is a government made of Muslims.

Where have I heard that oe before? Hmmm.... Oh, yeah. Every time communists wanted to disassociate their ideology from the monstros cies committed in its name. Stalin in Russia? He wasn't really a communist... Mao in China? He wasn't really a communist... :ahem:

[rogue06]

Originally posted by rogue06
Where have I heard that one before? Hmmm.... Oh, yeah. Every time communists wanted to disassociate their ideology from the monstrous crimes committed in its name. Stalin in Russia? He wasn't really a communist... Mao in China? He wasn't really a communist... :ahem:
Well, at least the typos are fixed so its readable.

[rogue06]

Originally posted by [b]barnasha[b]
It seems you have cherry picked a few instances where the character of the prophet Muhammad could be portrayed in a bad light. Why are you actively seeking situations which could be used to portray this person in a negative light, rather than making concessions as to the vast amount of historical data we have of the prophet Muhammad? It seems as if you are assassinating someone's character, using an almost emotional response, rather than making any sort of clear argument.
To provide balance to the cherry picking that you must do in order to justify your statement that "The prophet Muhammad won over people to his following by treating them well."

[Narnian]

Near the end of WW II, the Allies created the United Nations, NATO and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). Moslem countries could not assent to the UDHR, because it demanded total equality for women and Jews and total freedom of religion (which is apostasy to a Moslem and a capital offence requiring beheading).

If you have time, do you have a link to this information; it's very revealing isn't it? "Honour" first .... then somewhere down the line; "humans". :ahem:

Masters come before slaves. Honour comes before facts Thus, tailoring or suppressing the facts is an approved procedure, since the "Group" cannot be seen to be in the slightest error, thus losing face.

You've nailed it again :cool:

"Aslan is on the move." :wink:

:hehe:

[rogue06]

Originally posted by barnasha
It seems you have cherry picked a few instances where the character of the prophet Muhammad could be portrayed in a bad light. Why are you actively seeking situations which could be used to portray this person in a negative light, rather than making concessions as to the vast amount of historical data we have of the prophet Muhammad? It seems as if you are assassinating someone's character, using an almost emotional response, rather than making any sort of clear argument.
That's sort of like saying I cherry picked a few instances to make Jeffery Dahmer look bad :ahem:

[pannenberg]

More on the "WARS OF APOSTASY" - the master/slave subtext

Dear Bar Nasha,

Thank you for your lengthy justifications for the killings and tortures in the Koran and Hadith, but as an Infidel,I still see no evidence for and disagree with your opinion that Islam preaches benevolence to infidels.

Here’s why:

I am sure I don’t have to remind you that many Moslems consider you an innovator and an apostate, since you only “sit” and refuse to “join the caravan” of God, as the saintly Osama recently exhorted you to do. You must feel guilty about “sitting” rather than putting a bomb on your chest. Who knows Islam better, Sheikh Osama or you? Half of Moslems admire Osama. Other precious Islamic leaders, such as Ayatollah Khomeini have condemned your watered-down Islam in the strongest terms .

We are living in the time of the Third Great Jihad and only someone with his head in the desert sand would not see it. Since 9/11, Islamic terrorists have carried out more than 10,400 deadly terror attacks. In the first month of 2008, jihadists have killed more than 574 and wounded 901 in 14 countries ...and the month is not over.

The jihadists consider to be an apostate anyone who dilutes the 164 jihad verses of the Koran and explains away the duty to terrorize, kill and dominate the infidels. Apostates should be executed. The War against the Apostates was a holy and inspiring example. It produced the deaths of over 20,000 Arabs (probably nice people like you), the greatest slaughter ever in Arabia. It proved that whenever Moslems see a chance of freedom, they try to leave Islam’s prison in great numbers. I don’t understand how a Moslem can read about these atrocities without profound shame, horror and revulsion! You seem to feel it is a holy duty to defend these violent actions and impose a mental prison of censorship on this forum. I would be ashamed to be associated with people who blow up grannies and little girls in the market place, much less defend them and demand we not talk about it.

However, we are still free in the West and in this forum, to think and say what we want. The purpose of scientific questioning is not to hurt feelings, but rigorously to search for the truth. No one wants to put their mind in your Islamic jail or live in fear of decapitation or car bombs. There have been hundreds of Moslem suicide bombers murdering thousands of “apostate” Sunnis or Shi’as (nice people like yourself) since 9/11. They blow themselves up to receive their sensual rewards of eternal sex, at least 70,000 heavenly slaves each and the right to bring 70 family members along with them, plus actual cash...for killing many innocent people. I should be ashamed to be associated with such ideas.

As far as I’m concerned, nothing could be more satanic than these suicide bombers. They are driven by the very verses you just tried to water down. You must know they don’t even consider you a Moslem. You must realize you also are on their hit list. They do not agree with your half-hearted interpretation of the Koran and are prepared to kill you for it. There are a lot of them. Half of Moslems cheered when they heard about 9/11.

Did you cheer when you heard of 9/11?

I have personally known many cult members in the city where I live, Children of God, Hare Krishna, Bhagwan, etc. The problem was none of them knew they were cult members. They all followed a charismatic, narcissistic leader. The followers of Jim Jones or David Koresh did not know they were cult members, until it was too late.

Narcissists use pretexts for doing evil:

Adolf Hitler also suffered from a malignant narcissisistic personality disorder and his henchmen bought into his personality cult. They thought of him as the reincarnation of Wotan. Hitler found a pretext for each and every one of his atrocities. Abu Bakr found a pretext too for his War against the Apostates and so did Mohammed for his holy raids. What does that prove, though? It does not prove the pretexts were valid. Pretexts gave the followers the feeling they were doing something noble when they were being cruel. I have known Germans who felt everything Hitler did was justified. And I found it chilling.

The Reichstag mysteriously burnt down and four communists were blamed and killed. Hitler used this as a pretext for arresting and murdering all communists.

Hitler pretended Polish soldiers fired on Germans. He used this flimsy pretext to invade all of Poland. Hitler claimed Jews were the enemies of Germans. He then used the pretext to remove all Jews from Germany and seize all their wealth. Mohammed claimed all Jews were the enemies of Moslems and removed all Jews from Arabia and seized all their wealth.

Hitler implemented the same master/slave model throughout his empire: the Master Race, Deutschland ueber Alles. I would be ashamed to be associated with the Nazis in any way.

Hitler’s narcissistic followers went to jail for crimes against humanity. So did Saddam. So will Osama, when he is caught. Were not the Wars of Apostasy also crimes against humanity?

To the unskilled observer, the malignant narcissisistic personality disorder of Hitler seems to be no different from that of Abu Bakr, except for gunpowder, electricity and the internal combustion engine. If I assassinated 20,000 members of my church (many of whom I had worshipped with and who were my distant relatives), then seized their property and enslaved their wives and children, people would be justified in calling me a monster or a psychopath. I am sure I could not do it, but Abu Bakr did.

If your guru tells you that by killing people you will go to heaven, isn’t the logical conclusion that he is a crackpot?

There are no doubt many enjoyable occasions where nice Moslems like yourself get together with relatives and friends and enjoy the many charming religious ceremonies and feasts in a delightful family atmosphere. That is not what we are discussing. We are discussing the duty to defeat the infidels through terror. This is a very unpleasant subject. If you were one of the infidels, I am sure you would not want to be decapitated.

I leave you with the inspiring words of one of the greatest leaders of Islam, the founder of the Third Great Jihad, the rightly-guided Ayatollah Khomeini:

“Those who know nothing of Islam pretend that Islam counsels against war. Those [who say this] are witless. Islam says: Kill all the unbelievers just as they would kill you all! Does this mean that Muslims should sit back until they are devoured by [the unbelievers]? Islam says: Kill them, put them to the sword and scatter [their armies]….Islam says: Whatever good there is exists thanks to the sword and in the shadow of the sword! People cannot be made obedient except with the sword! The sword is the key to Paradise, which can be opened only for the Holy Warriors! There are hundreds of other ayahs and hadiths urging Muslims to value war and to fight. Does all this mean that Islam is a religion that prevents men from waging war? I spit upon those foolish souls who make such a claim.” (my italics)

-And Ayatollah Khomeini knows best


Btw, I hope you will find that one verse that says Moslems should be nice to the infidels. You are taking a long time.


As an accomplished Islamic scholar, you should be able to find this reference in 2 seconds.

If you do not find it, consider this:

“Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself... But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him...Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves? And he said, He that shewed mercy on him. Then said Jesus unto him, Go, and do thou likewise.”

Luke 10.27-37

[barnasha]

That's sort of like saying I cherry picked a few instances to make Jeffery Dahmer look bad :ahem:

I can tell by your childish retort that my analysis of your supposed argument was well-founded.

Had it been any other way you would have focused on the substance of my criticism.

[rogue06]

Originally posted by barnasha
I can tell by your childish retort that my analysis of your supposed argument was well-founded.

Had it been any other way you would have focused on the substance of my criticism.
I only respond to you on the level of what I perceived your "criticism" to be. If it had been serious rather than knee-jerk dismissive I would have replied in kind.

[moose7237]

I would think that would depend on what you mean by that. For too many Muslims that often means daring to resist them when they swoop down on an area killing and looting and forcing the survivors to convert.

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

In the Quran, it specifically states you cannot force anyone to convert. That is going against the teachings of the Quran. Here are the verses:

"Again and again will those who disbelieve, wish that they had bowed (to God's will) in Islam. Leave them alone, to enjoy (the good things of this life) and to please themselves: let (false) hope amuse them: soon will knowledge (undeceive them). (The Noble Quran, 15:2-3)"

"Say, 'The truth is from your Lord': Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject (it):......(The Noble Quran, 18:29)"

[pannenberg]

Dear Moose,
How reassuring to know that no one may be forced to convert to Islam. That may be your opinion, but I doubt it is the opinion of the majority of Moslems:

05/10/2004
pakistan
Forced conversion to Islam fatal for Christian boy
New incident reveals frightening trend


Lahore (AsiaNews/Ucan) – Outrage at the death of a Catholic boy forced to convert to Islam at the hands of torturous abductors has prompted the Pakistan Catholic Bishop's Commission of Justice and Peace, to take up the legal case. The Christian youth died of injuries inflicted by a teacher and students at an Islamic school. The National Commission for Justice and Peace declared May 4th that the incident reflects a worrying trend of forced conversions.

Javed Anjum, an 18-year-old commerce student was seized by a teacher and students of Jamia Hassan bin Almurtaza Madrasa (an Islamic religious school) on April 17th when he stopped for a drink of water at a nearby tap in Toba Tek Singh, 310 kilometres south of Islamabad. For five days he was tortured until his condition became so serious that the abusers took him to a police station, stating that he had been attempting to steal an electric water pump, and filed a charge of robbery against him. The boy was kept in police custody until April 24th, when he was finally taken for medical treatment. By that time, according to the Bishop's Commission investigation, it was too late to save him. Anjum died May 2nd, in a nearby Faisalabad hospital, of "renal failure", having also suffered broken ribs and loss of eyesight.

Gaza
Fatah officials in Ramallah claimed over the weekend that Professor Sana al-Sayegh, who teaches at Palestine University in Gaza City, was kidnapped by Hamas militiamen who forced her to convert to Islam against her will.

The officials said the president of the university, Dr. Zaher Khail, had assisted Hamas in kidnapping the professor.

They added that senior officials in the office of Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh played a major role in forcing her to convert to Islam.

"She was forced to convert to Islam against her will," the Fatah officials said. "She was kidnapped and held for two weeks during which time she was not allowed to contact her family."

Pakistan
Karachi: An alarming trend — that of Muslims kidnapping Pakistani Hindu girls and forcing them to convert to Islam — in Pakistan’s Sindh province is forcing the worried resident Hindu community to marry off their daughters as soon as they are of marriageable age or to migrate to India, Canada or other nations.

Recently, at least 19 such abduction cases have occurred in Karachi alone, while several others have been reported in the media.

Sanao Menghwar, a Hindu resident of Karachi’s Punjab Colony, is a traumatised man; all three of his daughters —Aishwarya, Reena and Reema — have been kidnapped and forced to convert to Islam.

In the police complaint that he filed at the behest of the Panchayat after two days of futile searching for his daughters, he stated that when he and his wife returned home from work, they discovered their daughters had gone missing.

The police arrested three Muslim youths in connection with the crime, who were later granted bail by a court because they’re minors. Menghwar’s daughters continue to remain missing.

“Kidnapping Hindu girls like this has become a normal practice. The girls are then forced to sign stamp papers stating that they’ve become Muslims,” says Laljee Menghwar, a member of the Hindu Panchayat in Karachi.

Armed Islamic extremists terrorize the faithful in Dora district
Iraq
Dora district.
mercredi 18 avril 2007.

ERBIL, Iraq, April 18 – Iraqi Christians fled their homes over the weekend after armed Sunni extremists threatened to kill them if they did not convert to Islam within 24 hours, Christian sources said.

Six Christian families from the Mualimien neighborhood of Baghdad’s Dora district have relocated to a church elsewhere in the city, said a Baghdad source who requested that the families’ location and identity remain anonymous.

Armed Sunnis told the families on Saturday (April 14) that an amir (independent Muslim prince or ruler) had issued a fatwa or judgment based on Islamic law against Dora’s Christians, the source said.

“They called the Christians infidels and told them, ‘If you don’t convert to Islam or leave your homes in 24 hours, we will kill you,’” the source told Compass after speaking with a member of the church helping the displaced Christians.

The source was unable to confirm an April 15 report from the news website Iraq Slogger that militants had printed the fatwa on fliers distributed throughout the neighborhood.

England
02/23/2007 10:23:21 AM PST by Eurotwit


Extremist Muslims who force vulnerable teenage girls to convert to Islam are being targeted by police, Met chief Sir Ian Blair has revealed.

Police are working with universities to clamp down on "aggressive conversions" during which girls are beaten up and forced to abandon university courses.

The Hindu Forum of Britain claims hundreds of mostly Sikh and Hindu girls have been intimidated by Muslim men who take them out on dates before terrorising them until they convert.

Sir Ian spoke about the problem at a conference organised by the forum.

A Met spokesman said: "Neighbourhood officers work with university authorities in London and we would encourage anyone targeted in this way to seek help and support and where necessary use third party reporting facilities if they do not want to contact police directly."

Ramesh Kallidai, of the Hindu Forum of Britain, said: "Some girls are petrified because they are constantly being phoned up, having their door knocked.

"One girl was beaten up on the street and others have been forced to leave university."

I, personally, would be ashamed to be associated with such people as these. Where are the protests and riots for things like these? No, Moslems overwhelmingly approve of forced conversions. You're wrong.

[moose7237]

Dear Moose,
How reassuring to know that no one may be forced to convert to Islam. That may be your opinion, but I doubt it is the opinion of the majority of Moslems:

05/10/2004
pakistan
Forced conversion to Islam fatal for Christian boy
New incident reveals frightening trend


Lahore (AsiaNews/Ucan) – Outrage at the death of a Catholic boy forced to convert to Islam at the hands of torturous abductors has prompted the Pakistan Catholic Bishop's Commission of Justice and Peace, to take up the legal case. The Christian youth died of injuries inflicted by a teacher and students at an Islamic school. The National Commission for Justice and Peace declared May 4th that the incident reflects a worrying trend of forced conversions.

Javed Anjum, an 18-year-old commerce student was seized by a teacher and students of Jamia Hassan bin Almurtaza Madrasa (an Islamic religious school) on April 17th when he stopped for a drink of water at a nearby tap in Toba Tek Singh, 310 kilometres south of Islamabad. For five days he was tortured until his condition became so serious that the abusers took him to a police station, stating that he had been attempting to steal an electric water pump, and filed a charge of robbery against him. The boy was kept in police custody until April 24th, when he was finally taken for medical treatment. By that time, according to the Bishop's Commission investigation, it was too late to save him. Anjum died May 2nd, in a nearby Faisalabad hospital, of "renal failure", having also suffered broken ribs and loss of eyesight.

Gaza
Fatah officials in Ramallah claimed over the weekend that Professor Sana al-Sayegh, who teaches at Palestine University in Gaza City, was kidnapped by Hamas militiamen who forced her to convert to Islam against her will.

The officials said the president of the university, Dr. Zaher Khail, had assisted Hamas in kidnapping the professor.

They added that senior officials in the office of Hamas Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh played a major role in forcing her to convert to Islam.

"She was forced to convert to Islam against her will," the Fatah officials said. "She was kidnapped and held for two weeks during which time she was not allowed to contact her family."

Pakistan
Karachi: An alarming trend — that of Muslims kidnapping Pakistani Hindu girls and forcing them to convert to Islam — in Pakistan’s Sindh province is forcing the worried resident Hindu community to marry off their daughters as soon as they are of marriageable age or to migrate to India, Canada or other nations.

Recently, at least 19 such abduction cases have occurred in Karachi alone, while several others have been reported in the media.

Sanao Menghwar, a Hindu resident of Karachi’s Punjab Colony, is a traumatised man; all three of his daughters —Aishwarya, Reena and Reema — have been kidnapped and forced to convert to Islam.

In the police complaint that he filed at the behest of the Panchayat after two days of futile searching for his daughters, he stated that when he and his wife returned home from work, they discovered their daughters had gone missing.

The police arrested three Muslim youths in connection with the crime, who were later granted bail by a court because they’re minors. Menghwar’s daughters continue to remain missing.

“Kidnapping Hindu girls like this has become a normal practice. The girls are then forced to sign stamp papers stating that they’ve become Muslims,” says Laljee Menghwar, a member of the Hindu Panchayat in Karachi.

Armed Islamic extremists terrorize the faithful in Dora district
Iraq
Dora district.
mercredi 18 avril 2007.

ERBIL, Iraq, April 18 – Iraqi Christians fled their homes over the weekend after armed Sunni extremists threatened to kill them if they did not convert to Islam within 24 hours, Christian sources said.

Six Christian families from the Mualimien neighborhood of Baghdad’s Dora district have relocated to a church elsewhere in the city, said a Baghdad source who requested that the families’ location and identity remain anonymous.

Armed Sunnis told the families on Saturday (April 14) that an amir (independent Muslim prince or ruler) had issued a fatwa or judgment based on Islamic law against Dora’s Christians, the source said.

“They called the Christians infidels and told them, ‘If you don’t convert to Islam or leave your homes in 24 hours, we will kill you,’” the source told Compass after speaking with a member of the church helping the displaced Christians.

The source was unable to confirm an April 15 report from the news website Iraq Slogger that militants had printed the fatwa on fliers distributed throughout the neighborhood.

England
02/23/2007 10:23:21 AM PST by Eurotwit


Extremist Muslims who force vulnerable teenage girls to convert to Islam are being targeted by police, Met chief Sir Ian Blair has revealed.

Police are working with universities to clamp down on "aggressive conversions" during which girls are beaten up and forced to abandon university courses.

The Hindu Forum of Britain claims hundreds of mostly Sikh and Hindu girls have been intimidated by Muslim men who take them out on dates before terrorising them until they convert.

Sir Ian spoke about the problem at a conference organised by the forum.

A Met spokesman said: "Neighbourhood officers work with university authorities in London and we would encourage anyone targeted in this way to seek help and support and where necessary use third party reporting facilities if they do not want to contact police directly."

Ramesh Kallidai, of the Hindu Forum of Britain, said: "Some girls are petrified because they are constantly being phoned up, having their door knocked.

"One girl was beaten up on the street and others have been forced to leave university."

I, personally, would be ashamed to be associated with such people as these. Where are the protests and riots for things like these? No, Moslems overwhelmingly approve of forced conversions. You're wrong.

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

Are these people following the rules of the Quran??? The answer to that is no they are not. There are indeed Muslims who claim to be of the religion of Islam but are completely going against the word of God, and follow none of the teachings of the Quran. Saddam Hussein is a prime example. He claimed to be a Muslim, but even the Muslims hated him because he was a dictator. Now I wanted to point this out from your article:

Extremist Muslims who force vulnerable teenage girls to convert to Islam are being targeted by police, Met chief Sir Ian Blair has revealed.

Extremist Muslims do not comprise of 1.5 billion Muslims. This is what is stated in the Quran for us to follow about forcing others to join Islam:

Let there be no compulsion in religion: Truth stands out clear from error: whoever rejects evil and believes in Allah hath grasped the most trustworthy handhold, that never breaks. And Allah heareth and knoweth all things. (The Noble Quran, 2:256)"

"Again and again will those who disbelieve, wish that they had bowed (to God's will) in Islam. Leave them alone, to enjoy (the good things of this life) and to please themselves: let (false) hope amuse them: soon will knowledge (undeceive them). (The Noble Quran, 15:2-3)"

"Say, 'The truth is from your Lord': Let him who will believe, and let him who will, reject (it):......(The Noble Quran, 18:29)"

"Say : O ye that reject Faith! I worship not that which ye worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. And I will not worship that which ye have been wont to worship, Nor will ye worship that which I worship. To you be your Way, and to me mine. (The Noble Quran, 109:1-6)"

Anyone who forces people against their will to convert, ARE HYPOCRITES WHO ARE NOT TRULY FOLLOWING ISLAM'S TEACHINGS


The same thing can be said of the KKK, who claimed to be Christians and killed african americans. Can we say this is the teachings of Christianity and all Christians are racists who want to kill african americans? On the contrary, that would be very unfair.

[rogue06]

Originally posted by moose7237
Hello and Peace be to you friend,

In the Quran, it specifically states you cannot force anyone to convert. That is going against the teachings of the Quran.

Hi moose,
If you mean that Islam always offers the choice of convert, slavery (dhimmitude) or death, you are correct, Islam doesn't "force" conversions. You can always choose slavery or death instead. See? Nothing "forced" here. No coercion at all.

But the fact is that Islam does use and accept coercion in their conversions. In his later years Mohammed told his followers that he had been commanded by Allah to fight unbelievers until they spoke the Shahada (profession of faith in Islam).As stated above, Muslims were (and still are) commanded to fight unbelievers until they are either dead, converted to Islam, or in a permanent state of subjugation under Muslim domination. From the Koran itself (note that Suras 9 and 5 are the last "revelations" that Muhammad handed down as thus "abrogate" (i.e., nullify) earlier more peaceful proclamations):

"Fight those who believe not in Allah nor the Last Day, nor hold that forbidden which hath been forbidden by Allah and His Messenger, nor acknowledge the religion of Truth, (even if they are) of the People of the Book, until they pay the Jizya with willing submission, and feel themselves subdued." --Sura (9:29)

"But when the forbidden months are past, then fight and slay the Pagans wherever ye find them, and seize them, beleaguer them, and lie in wait for them in every stratagem (of war); but if they repent, and establish regular prayers and practice regular charity, then open the way for them..." --Sura (9:5)

The Hadiths repeat this theme constantly. Here is but one example:
"Allah's Apostle said: "I have been ordered (by Allah) to fight against the people until they testify that none has the right to be worshipped but Allah and that Muhammad is Allah's Apostle, and offer the prayers perfectly and give the obligatory charity, so if they perform a that, then they save their lives and property from me except for Islamic laws and then their reckoning (accounts) will be done by Allah." --Bukhari (2:24)

In the 14th century, the influential Islamic philosopher Ibn Khaldun stated the options for non-Muslims quite clearly: "It is [for them to choose between] conversion to Islam, payment of the poll tax [dhimmitude], or death."

Further, Mohammed wasn't all that bothered by conversions that were obviously made under duress during his lifetime. For example, the residents and leaders of Mecca apparently detested him,yet they all "converted" to Islam the moment that he conquered them with an army so dominant that no resistance was offered. These new converts even included his sworn enemies of Abu Sufyan and his wife Hind.Apparently their "religious epiphany" just happened to coincide perfectly with the time a sword was put to their throat. In fact, according to Islamic tradition
the exact words spoken to Abu Sufyan during his "acceptance" of Islam were "Submit and testify that there is no God but Allah and that Muhammad is the apostle of Allah before you lose your head." Nope.Doesn't sound like Mohammed at too much trouble with forced conversion.

Finally, in 2006 there was the case of Fox News journalist Steve Centanni and his photogapher were kidnapped in Gaza and forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint before being released. If this sort of thing is opposed by Islam, just what was the point of it (and those other forced conversions by Muslims mentioned by pannenberg)?

[rogue06]

Originally posted by moose7237
<SNIP>
The same thing can be said of the KKK, who claimed to be Christians and killed african americans. Can we say this is the teachings of Christianity and all Christians are racists who want to kill african americans? On the contrary, that would be very unfair.
</SNIP>
If you can name any prominent Christian leaders who condone this sort of behavior you might have a point. If you could name any prominent Islamic leaders who condemn this sort of behavior you might have a point.

[pannenberg]

Hey Moose,

Did you cheer when you heard about 9/11?

[rogue06]

Originally posted by pannenberg
Hey Moose,

Did you cheer when you heard about 9/11?
Ouch! I don't think moose has done anything here to indicate that he supports the Islamic terrorists.

[rogue06]

Originally posted by rogue06
<SNIP>
Finally, in 2006 there was the case of Fox News journalist Steve Centanni and his photogapher were kidnapped in Gaza and forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint before being released. If this sort of thing is opposed by Islam, just what was the point of it (and those other forced conversions by Muslims mentioned by pannenberg)?
I should point out that the video released by the kidnappers of Centanni and his cameraman Olaf Wiig being (In Centanni's own words) "forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint," is that the kidnappers themselves invoke the Koran verse "There is no compulsion in religion" while they are forcing
Centanni and Wiig to convert!

I think that we in the west have a very different idea of what constitutes compulsion or force than do most Muslims.

[moose7237]

Hey Moose,

Did you cheer when you heard about 9/11?

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

Why would I cheer innocent civilian lives being lost? It was a tragedy struck against innocent people who did not deserve for their lives to end in that way. But I wouldn't say that 6 men represent 1.5 billion people, and I wouldn't say that only muslim terrorists were involved in 9/11.

[moose7237]

I should point out that the video released by the kidnappers of Centanni and his cameraman Olaf Wiig being (In Centanni's own words) "forced to convert to Islam at gunpoint," is that the kidnappers themselves invoke the Koran verse "There is no compulsion in religion" while they are forcing
Centanni and Wiig to convert!

I think that we in the west have a very different idea of what constitutes compulsion or force than do most Muslims.

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

Muslim extremists would kill anyone who does not agree with them. I have had personal family members be kidnapped for ransome in Iraq. Muslims kidnapped Muslims. If you admit you are a shiite person to an extremist they would kill you. Its not just non-muslims terrorized by these extremists. Saddam Hussein was an extremist who killed turks and shiites as well.

And in the Quran it also states to those who disbelieve "leave them alone". I quoted the verse above. It cannot get any more clear than that.

[moose7237]

If you can name any prominent Christian leaders who condone this sort of behavior you might have a point. If you could name any prominent Islamic leaders who condemn this sort of behavior you might have a point.

Hello and Peace be to you,

I cannot name any christian scholars who support the KKK(and I am happy about that!). If you want to know of any Islamic leaders who condemn terrorism, search for any shiite scholar that blessed what happened on that day.

[rogue06]

Originally posted by moose7237
I cannot name any christian scholars who support the KKK(and I am happy about that!). If you want to know of any Islamic leaders who condemn terrorism, search for any shiite scholar that blessed what happened on that day.
Being silent is not the same thing as condemning something. In fact, silence is often (mis)taken for tact approval.

[rogue06]

Hello and Peace be to you friend,

Muslim extremists would kill anyone who does not agree with them. I have had personal family members be kidnapped for ransome in Iraq. Muslims kidnapped Muslims. If you admit you are a shiite person to an extremist they would kill you. Its not just non-muslims terrorized by these extremists. Saddam Hussein was an extremist who killed turks and shiites as well.

And in the Quran it also states to those who disbelieve "leave them alone". I quoted the verse above. It cannot get any more clear than that.

You are familiar with the doctrine of abrogation?

Edit: Hope your family is safe

[Dan Zebiri]

But, moose, DO NOT CONVENIENTLY FORGET, that 1.2 billion Muslims around the world take their injunctions from the SAME QURAN WHICH has commands and directions to violently deal with the Non-Muslims who do not follow islam! And to extract the jizyah tax from them in islamic states.

And that these are also regarded as 'NAJISUN' or Profane in 'both the sight of God and of men!' Thus they do not deserve to be dealt with honor and respect UNTIL they become muslims! (who alone are so-called 'the best of the peoples on the earth'!! -by the quran's own conceited self-definition!)

Wasalaam, Dan.

[barnasha]

that extremist interpretation of Islam is dan's

[Dan Zebiri]

What more nonsense from the inordinate islamophile barney-boy! :tongue: :ahem:

Quit playing the hide-behind-the-interpretations game, barny and face the facts these are all VERSES DIRECTLY FROM THE QURAN, which in turn inform and inspire muslims to their corresponding postures and actions toward the non-muslims.

Wasalaam, Dan.


that extremist interpretation of Islam is dan's

[pannenberg]

Jihad: “Defensive” really means “Offensive”

I don’t think it is fair to accuse anyone on this forum of intentionally hiding the behind interpretation. There are some very lively debates on the Islamic forums about the nature of jihad: Is it “offensive”? Is it “defensive”? Is it “spiritual”? Can we even talk about jihad “today”, since the “world situation” is so different? Is jihad "legal" without a caliph?

In this regard, I enthusiastically recommend the following discussion to all participants in the forum:

(http://www.sunniforum.com/forum/archive/index.php?t-13906.html)

Even those who have many years of Islamic studies under their belts are confused about jihad. The entire subject is extremely confusing due to the varying interpretations of Koranic verses and differing uses of the words “defensive” and “offensive”. Every school has a different take, and there are dissenters in each school, who differ with the “majority view”. Most scholars (here again no unanimity) would say “all jihad is offensive”, but read the following:

“As you can see, the term 'defensive' used by classical scholars when saying that all jihad is defensive demands some interpretation. What is considered as 'offensive' today was interpreted as defensive by them. This is also touched upon in the letters. That is why I said telling non-Muslims that classical scholars said jihad is defensive in nature is misleading (without expounding on the term to include the 'offensive' part) ... as there is a difference in the understanding of the term defensive. What classical scholars deemed as defensive, is understood as offensive today. A good example of this is that of Ibn Taymiyya. It was quoted somewhere here that he said that all jihad is defensive. However, he also holds the opinion that it is Fard to send expeditions twice a year to non-Muslim lands - which would be commonly called offensive nowadays.”

So, “defensive jihad” to an Islamic scholar would have the same practical effect on the infidels as an “offensive jihad”. This explains why jihadists can reckon 9/11 as “defensive” and the fatal suicide murder of Benazir Bhutto as “defensive” as well (she was an apostate and sell-out). The Wars of Apostasy would also be deemed “defensive”. Any pre-emptive strikes against infidel targets may also be termed “defensive”...in the defence of Islam, because “maybe” the enemy was going to attack “eventually”. Using this line of thinking, almost any attack in the name of Islam could be considered “defensive” and therefore, islamically correct, regardless of those Islamic jurists who take a more “moderate” or even “modern” approach. The writer continues:

“Some of you really don't get what the Non-Muslms have beef with. Sure, there may be minority views (heck, even major views) in Islam which are against Offensive wars. However, the Non-Muslims couldn't care less which particular school of a particular madhab says what. They look at Islam as a whole. As long as a *valid* opinion in Islam exists (regardless of how big or small) which promotes offensive warfare - Islam is a potential threat (and for good reason!). The non-Muslims don't want to hear, "Ohh, look at these Maliki scholars ... they say that the mashuur opinion is that once the borders are secure, it is no longer obligatory to fight the Non-Muslims (conveniently leaving out that while it is no longer obligatory, it is a nafl or a rewarded deed)." They want to hear, "Islam does not condone offensive warfare, and does not threaten the polical status quo. If any scholar has said so in the past, the present, or will say it in the future - their opinion is invalid and contradicts the basic Islamic texts upon which the religion is standing." This is what the non-Muslim wants to hear. Everything else that we tell them is a deception and a means to buy time since it does not address the core issue. If the core issue is not solved, it will come up again and again and again. Even if the scholars are brazen enough to say that Jihad is now abrogated due to the modern political situaiton, blah blah blah ... it will still not solve the 'problem'. Because, the abrogation is done conditioned upon the current political situation. What if the political situation changes in the future? Jihad will no longer be abrogated, and we run into problems again. The 'problem' is that as long as a valid opinion exists within Islam, there is always a potential that people will practice it. When that valid opinion happens to be that it is praiseworthy (or even permissible) to make war against the infidels to achieve political victories in order to spread Islam - then the non-Muslims' survival instincts kick in and look for remedies to it (wiping islam out, neo-colonialism, never allowing an Islamic state to exists in it's true form, etc...)

The point of view that calls “pre-emptive” or expansionist jihad attacks as “defensive” could be considered a form of “siege mentality”, i.e. “they” are out to get us, so we will get “them” first. For the Salafist jihadizer, this confirms the legality of attacking all infidels, as well as all apostate Moslems and all heretics such as Shi’ites. Still confused?
;-)

[barnasha]

your discussion of the concept of the jihaad seems strangely in line with the most extremist, uneducated muslims - precisely those hijacking the religion for their purposes - whether on the western or islamic side.

a cursory academic study into jihad will show that it is not all about war (greater and lesser jihad, e.g.) - not to mention that most of the precedents for war are in a time of oppression (i.e. originally, the muslims fighting for their lives against their genocidal attackers)

I suggest you form your argument in a way that clarifies its scope: jihad in the view of extremists, or per the quran and sunnah?

Do not unwittingly support the interpretations of the extremists, thus giving them power, even if you do seek to discredit the culture which they - or those wishing to malign that which they perverted - hijacked.

[pannenberg]

Who are the Highjackers of Islam? : "Extremist" is not a useful term...inventing a new word "jihadizer"

Thank you for the challenge. My answer is that "extremist" can mean anything. It is therefore not a useful term. It allows you to avoid what is the basic cognitive disconnect of Islam in the modern world: the question of jihad. Jihad has no place in a nuclear world. Period. And secondly, I do not accept your belief that Moslems attacked North Africa, Asia Minor, Asia, India, and the Twin Towers because they were "under threat". Nor do I think you would call them "defensive". These were undeniable cases of aggressive, expansionist, "non-defensive" jihad. To say any of these unprovoked wars of conquest were anything but "offensive" is to indulge in the "selective thinking" of the kind I outlined in my previous post. It stems from the Islamic fantasy of "siege mentality". No, Islam was not threatened by far away Spain or central Asia or the Twin Towers. These wars of conquest and surprise attacks were purely examples of the unending "War, war until victory!" Everyone is entitled to an opinion, but not to change the historic facts. The purpose of jihad is military conquest.

Inadequacy of the word "extremist"...it does not address the question of jihad + the cognitive disconnect

To Moslems, jihad is not "extreme". It is the central core of Islam. If only there were a tiny group of "extremists" in Islam. If only it were so simple! "Extremist" is an almost meaningless word that (in Islam) doesn't say more than "I don't agree with their level of violence or their style of violence." Calls to jihad come from the very top levels of Islam, whether in Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, or South Africa and they are coming often and from too many sides to follow. Give the jihad people some credit. They are not fools. They sincerely believe they are following "real" Islam and that you are watering it down. Jihad terminology is used extensively throughout Islam at all levels. It may be used to popularize a family's political agenda, but it is too hard a thing for the masses to resist after an enthralling Friday sermon. The passion and violence it calls for is an exciting but downward spiral that historically has meant the constant internecine murders of Moslem by Moslem, of caliph by his erstwhile cronies and the slaughter of defenceless dhimmis. Jihad can mean almost anything the locutor wants it to mean. Those who say barnasha is hiding behind a particular interpretation have a point, but I disagree with them. You sincerely believe you speak for all Moslems, but 10% of Pakistanis have identified themselves as "Taliban", i.e. 17 million, the majority of Saudis want to destroy Israel. Are these people you call extremist? No, "extremist" means almost anything or nothing.

I propose the word "jihadizer" (modeled on Judaizer in the NT) to describe those, who unlike barnasha, take jihad to be the second, if not the first pillar of Islam. Are they "heretics"? I would argue that they are following the true Sunnah of those inspiring, manly pioneers who proudly and defiantly declared (Ishaq:489) "Do the bastards think that we are not their equal in fighting? We are men who think that there is no shame in killing." The jihadizers are the Salafis who drink from the cup of pure Islam, unadulterated by sugar-coating, watering down or explaining away. They see themselves as heroes who act in the defence of Islam.

Expansionist jihad is the absolute final teaching of Allah and nothing about it can be changed. The expansionist imperative of jihad and the need to share power in a democracy (i.e. share power with the najis Infidels) are totally incompatible one with another. After all, Dhimmis should know their place. This is the point of tension where pure Islam must water itself down or experience a total cognitive disconnect with the modern world. The university educated Moslems of today (except for a few medical doctors and OBL) are not going to grab the scimitar and simply kill 20,000 apostates as the Salafs did in the so-called Wars of Apostasy, which were more tribal slaughters of poorly defended or defenceless people. Modern "moderate" Moslems are too influenced by the UDHR and the idea of liberal democracy to accept the idea of an absolute, despotic caliph who gives the order for a final, nuclear jihad holocaust. Jihad cannot no longer be espoused by a sane person, but "Islam cannot be changed."

There is no "official" interpretation of Islam, only a series of opinions by various people. There is no single school of "educated" Moslems who have all the truth and then the "unwashed" who are the "uneducated" and "ignorant". I appreciate that you are trying to cast yourself as the one with the "true" interpretation of Islam. But all the other "educated" authorities are the "true" interpreters of Islam in their own minds as well! Islam has no archbishop or cardinal or pope who speaks universally for his followers. There are only various schools and various interpretations. There are "extremists" in each school. I have invented the word "jihadizer" to describe what it is that they are doing.

The main point in my previous posting, (I don't know how clearer I could have been!), was contained in the quote by that most enlightened scholar in sunniforum. Here it is again with emphasis added so you won't miss it the second time:

"Some of you really don't get what the Non-Muslims have a beef with (my italics)... As long as a *valid* opinion in Islam exists (regardless of how big or small) which promotes offensive warfare - Islam is a potential threat (and for good reason!)"....

As he said "and for good reason!" Jihad and the motivation for jihad is after all over one-half of the Koran.

Here's the beef: I'll spell it out. We "najis" Infidels just don't enjoy living under the threat of constant "jihad until victory", nor do we accept "willingly" to live in thrall under a dhimmi contract. (No, we don't think the dhimmi contract was "just fine" or "not so bad" or "quite generous"...we think dhimmitude was a series of constant threats of sudden death from the mob.) Nor do we want to give up our freedom of expression. And we are addicted to liberal democracy. Imagine the temerity of those uppity infidels who actually don't want to be ruled by Sharia! Perhaps incredible to you, but I would call the belief that infidels are "really" yearning to be enslaved "extreme". The calls for the beheadings of Infidels in page after page in the Koran are directed at me, not you! Perhaps I am mistaken, though...for you may be considered an apostate by OBL and companions. Your jihadist brothers are watching you.

So basically, the jihadizers do not water down pure traditional jihad. "Moderate" Moslems try to sugar coat it and explain it away. Taqlid won't work in a scholarly forum.

And Sayyid Qutb knows best.


Suggestion to everyone: Google search..."offensive + jihad"...see what you find.

[barnasha]

"Some of you really don't get what the Non-Muslims have a beef with (my italics)... As long as a *valid* opinion in Islam exists (regardless of how big or small) which promotes offensive warfare - Islam is a potential threat (and for good reason!)"....

You are using the same logical fallacy employed by everyone else here.

That is, if someone perverts Islam, Islam is the problem!

When people try to take from the Quran to show that this is the case, it turns out the God, in the Quran, opposes such behavior. So then one must fall back on this fallacious strawman stuff: "well, these guys say they're muslim, so look how bad their religion is!"

We could say the same for humanity at large. Look at the murderers of the past few millenia. They come from all religions and cultures. If we went by their behavior, humanity is evil to the core.

One might argue, using your logic, that humanity is the problem, not Islam.

All of your respective arguments still fail to explain how the extremist (incorrect) interpretation of Islam violates the clear guidelines for struggling in the cause of God (aka Jihad) and the requirements for one to be obeying God (as found in the Quran, Bible, etc).

For example, it is a rule that war is in self defense only.

Another example is that civilians may not be harmed.

If someone acts un-Christian, it's not because Jesus was a bad man.

[Dan Zebiri]

Islamophile Barney,

Stop comparing Jesus Christ with Muhammad - islam's founder...!

Muhammad cannot hold a candle to Jesus Christ and so is in no way comparable to Him when it comes to kindness, compassion, grace, mercy and truth!

Jesus Christ never exacted or committed vengeance on His enemies! Muhamad did!

Jesus Christ never murdered and robbed from His enemies to feed and provide for his own people! But Muhammad sure did!!

Jesus Christ never enticed His people to fight or die for Him or His cause, promising those men 'heavenly virgins and fairies (houries)' if they died doing so! Muhammad cunningly enticed his men so to do!!

So, the followers of these 2 men would also choose and follow their respective Leaders extremely differently!

Dan.

[pannenberg]

My response: The core, source texts of Islam reveal the glorification of militarism, expansionism (a Holy Arab Empire), and killing of anyone who resists enslavement. The 164 jihad verses and episodes like the Wars of Apostasy give true believers too many excuses to behave badly. They feel commanded to behave inhumanely even to members of their own family. No branch of Islam can control the jihadizers, because jihad is Islam. The Hadiths have dozens of tales of torture and assassination carried out by the original core members. Rather than hide these hideous murders, or comment sadly about them, they appear in Islam's most important writings with glowing admiration and pride. This original group of killers and enslavers are the examples to be followed? That is my point: These are not aberrations, but the exemplars. The medieval re-invention of Islam as a less expansionist faith came as result of organized opposition by Europe to its expansion . With no new plunder to enrich its conquistadors, and the end of slavery, the Islamic world fell into abject poverty from which it has not recovered. Taqlid leads to a culture of complete passivity where bold, independant thought (such as in this forum) is "unthinkable". The golden age of Baghdad came about thanks to translations from Greek and Syriac made by trilingual Chaldean Christians. The caliph had outlawed the teaching of those languages, the languages of learning at the time! The greatest of the Arab thinkers of the time (e.g. ar Razi) were agnostics ("apostates" in Islamic terminology) or free thinkers. Their sceptical writings were suppressed. The combined GDP of 15 Arab countries is less than that of Spain and Portugal. I believe the core value of jihad is totally incompatible with the nuclear, global village. How can it not be a cognitive disconnect for a thinking person? The days of taqlid are numbered. No question is taboo any more.

[Narnian]

your discussion of the concept of the jihaad seems strangely in line with the most extremist, uneducated muslims - precisely those hijacking the religion for their purposes - whether on the western or islamic side.

Almost all Islamic terrorists, jihadists and supporters are highly educated, prosperous, good looking, middle class people. They are doctors, engineers, pilots, child care workers and teachers.

The ones who don't engage in this jihad cult are the uneducated. Their minds have not yet been twisted by what they read in the Quran and Hadithes.

If someone acts un-Christian, it's not because Jesus was a bad man.

So by this same logic, a bad muslim is a good person, since Muhammad was a bad man.

[barnasha]

Almost all Islamic terrorists, jihadists and supporters are highly educated, prosperous, good looking, middle class people. They are doctors, engineers, pilots, child care workers and teachers.

The ones who don't engage in this jihad cult are the uneducated. Their minds have not yet been twisted by what they read in the Quran and Hadithes.



So by this same logic, a bad muslim is a good person, since Muhammad was a bad man.

Most well educated muslims are not at all criminals.

There are white collar criminals in secular societies too.

The poor not turning to crime - that's a point in Islam's favor.

Your characterization of Muhammad as a "bad man" as the crux of an argument is rather childish and exceptionally weak. A statement backed up by an opinion is wholly insubstantial.

That this is all you have to make arguments with shows the depths to which you are willing to go to malign Islam.

[Narnian]

Your characterization of Muhammad as a "bad man" as the crux of an argument is rather childish and exceptionally weak.

Unless you can prove me and all those Hadithes wrong, your argument is rather childish and expectionally weak.

That this is all you have to make arguments with shows the depths to which you are willing to go to malign Islam.

And you show the depths to which you are willing to delude yourself :whistle:

[Dan Zebiri]

Malign islam...?? Islam maligns itself with the quranic records of Muhammad's atrocities against people that he unjustly victimised, especially after he came to power in Madinah.

There are the records in the hadiths and the valid seerahs or Histories of Muhammad's life!

Narnian is correct in the main! There are hadiths that expose the inordinacy of your prophet muhammad!

You can try to challenge that in vain, because you will be shamefully disproved immediately by all these records that are found within islam itself!

Dan.

[pannenberg]

"BAD"?

Tabari VIII:122/Ishaq:515 “The Prophet gave orders concerning Kinanah to Zubayr, saying, ‘Torture him until you root out and extract what he has (his hidden treasure). So Zubayr kindled a fire on Kinanah’s chest, twirling it with his firestick until Kinanah was near death. Then the Messenger gave him to Maslamah, who beheaded him.”

This one attrocity alone disqualifies Mohammed as a valid prophet.

Mohammed did not see torture and murder as "bad", and yet it is. Those who worked at Auschwitz did not see themselves as "bad" either.

There are far too many Hadiths that reveal the excessive cruelty of true Islam and the criminality of its founders:

SAHIH BUKHARI, VOL 4 CHAPTER 88
Narrated Ibn 'Umar: The Prophet said, "MY LIVELIHOOD IS UNDER THE SHADE OF MY SPEAR, FROM WAR BOOTY."

Mo was a proud, self-confessed pirate. So were the Nazis.

There can be no justification for this story. The worst part is they did it using the name of God.

I pray for anyone whose heart is so hard he cannot see it.

[pannenberg]

Malignant Narcissistic Personality Disorder...

The atrocities glowingly described in the Hadiths reveal Mohammed and his gang had no emotion for their victims, ""Ali Ibn Abi Talib encountered a man called ’Umru and told him, ‘I indeed to invite you to Islam.’ ’Umru said, ‘I do not need that.’ ’Ali said, ‘Then I call you to fight. Umru answered him, ‘What for my nephew? By God, I do not like to kill you.’ ’Ali said, ‘But, by God, I love to kill you."’

I share the following excellent article which describes how sociopathic killers like Ted Bundy or John Wayne Gacy are able to feel no emotion for their victims. Please click the link:

http://people.howstuffworks.com/psychopath.htm

"Do criminal psychopaths enjoy other people's fear or just not notice it? Criminal Psychopaths"

Quote: "Serial killers (and many other types of violent criminals) are typically considered to be psychopaths with aggressive and anti-social characteristics...The study set out to test the idea that psychopaths don't experience empathy for other people's distress -- can't understand, sense or appropriately react to it -- because they don't grasp the signs of that distress...Psychopaths, violent or non-violent, have no "moral compass," no conscience. They do not experience feelings of guilt for the crimes or betrayals they commit."


...a psychological explanation for "evil"?

Ayesha said, "His eye wept for no one."

[Narnian]

As a mother myself, I find this story of Muhammad stoning some poor dejected, and obviously depressed, young woman to death, and leaving her child obviously screaming for her, definitive proof that Muhammad is not from God but a blood thirsty monster;

Kitab Al-Hudud Book 017, Number 4206
.... He (the Holy Prophet) entrusted the child to one of the Muslims and then pronounced punishment. And she was put in a ditch up to her chest and he commanded people and they stoned her. Khalid b Walid came forward with a stone which he flung at her head and there spurted blood on the face of Khalid ...

Contrast that to the story of Jesus in the same situation 700 years before:

John 8 The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?" This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, "Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her." And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, "Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?" She said, "No one, Lord." And Jesus said, "Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more."

I pray for anyone whose heart is so hard he cannot see it.

I join you in this prayer, Pannenberg

[pannenberg]

Dear barnasha,

I am delighted to respond to your points because I believe you are introducing and responding to your own questions, rather than pursuing the topic, which is the Wars of Apostasy and why authentic Moslems are commanded to murder one another, e.g. Sunnis sending suicide bombers to Shia neighbourhoods in Iraq.

This way of avoiding the issue (deviation) is called the "Fallacy of Distraction" or the "Fallacy of Changing the Subject". It is a smoke screen to avoid an embarrassing answer! I am disappointed because I have tried to be very clear.

You are using the same logical fallacy employed by everyone else here, i.e. straw man That is, if someone perverts Islam, Islam is the problem!

Hardly, old boy! I am focussing on the original, authentic, unperverted Islam of the Pioneers, who cannot possibly be accused of perverting Islam! They are the exemplars all Moslems are bound to follow! The Hadiths and Sira illustrate the proper torture and slaying of infidels as practiced by the founding Moslems and their leaders. You must behave as they did: 2.216] Fighting is enjoined on you, and it is an object of dislike to you; and it may be that you dislike a thing while it is good for you, and it may be that you love a thing while it is evil for you, and Allah knows, while you do not know

So there you have it. You must kill and torture to please Allah.

the God, in the Quran, opposes such behavior.

Totally false, Allah thought so little of the Golden Rule, he did not consider it necessary to include it in his final perfect message to mankind. The Golden Rule is thus totally irrelevant to Moslems. A Moslem may not take infidels as his friends, so the Golden Rule contradicts the Koran in every way. I don't know why you just don't admit this, since that is factual. The dualistic ethics of Allah (one rule for proper Moslems and other rules for all other "najis" people) completely abolish the Golden Rule.

We could say the same for humanity at large. Look at the murderers of the past few millenia. They come from all religions and cultures. If we went by their behavior, humanity is evil to the core.

Islam is the only faith that institutionalizes decapitation, crucifixion, marriage of six-year-olds. Adolf Hitler's aberration was based on the destruction of the Golden Rule and ended by normalizing torture and murder. The Islam of the Hadiths shows the same things, the conscienceless ill treatment of the "other".


All of your respective arguments still fail to explain how the extremist (incorrect) interpretation of Islam violates the clear guidelines for struggling in the cause of God (aka Jihad) and the requirements for one to be obeying God (as found in the Quran, Bible, etc).

It is your opinion that the Salafi Wahhabist school of jihad is "incorrect". They , however, believe you are incorrect and a heretic. They will look for you if you are too outspoken about this. DON'T GIVE THEM YOUR ADDRESS!

If someone acts un-Christian, it's not because Jesus was a bad man.

Agreed. Moslems who torture, assassinate and murder are following the authentic Sunnah of their Hero as we read about him and his gang in the Koran and Hadiths. The jihadizers say you are following a wishy washy, watered-down, unmanly version of Islam. You only "sit" while they apply the 164 jihad commands in the Koran. Abu Bakr murdered 20,000 of his fellow Arabs. The Rightly Guided Caliphs killed one another and their followers, as well as Mohammed's family. Hardly, an aberration, but the real Islam. You must join them or admit the whole concept of "jihad"...murdering people to coerce them to join your faith, is wrong, plain wrong. Such murder and torture surely cannot come from the same God who commanded us to observe the Golden Rule, and it does not, for there is no Golden Rule in Islam.

I end by kindly asking you (for the third time) to have the courage to answer two very easy questions:

1) What is the reference for the Golden Rule in Islam?

2) Did you cheer when you heard about 9/11?


And Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab knows best!

[barnasha]

Dear barnasha,

I am delighted to respond to your points because I believe you are introducing and responding to your own questions, rather than pursuing the topic, which is the Wars of Apostasy and why authentic Moslems are commanded to murder one another, e.g. Sunnis sending suicide bombers to Shia neighbourhoods in Iraq.


Such is a slanderous claim leveled by you without the least bit of substantiation.

What, exactly, does the political situation in Iraq have to do with Islam?

[pannenberg]

1) Tons of substantiation, mostly from original texts of Islam...the ultimate proof of all my arguments!

2) Iraq is a continuation of the Wars of Apostasy. (Both Shias and Sunnis treat one another as kuffar.)

3) Slander is a falsehood. My arguments are the same ones the jihadists use, following the Koran and Sunnah. Are they slandering Islam too? Then you must apply the suitable Islamic punishments to the jihadizers (e.g. Sayyid Qutb was hanged for heresy and sedition...are you willing to do that to your brother Moslems who call for offensive jihad?)

...and lastly, did you cheer when you heard about 9/11?

Please answer. (I am starting to believe you are too embarassed to answer on the grounds the answer is "YES".)

[barnasha]

1) Tons of substantiation, mostly from original texts of Islam...the ultimate proof of all my arguments!


saying you have 'tons of substantiation' does not constitute substantiation.


2) Iraq is a continuation of the Wars of Apostasy. (Both Shias and Sunnis treat one another as kuffar.)


I know shia and sunni who do not treat each other as 'kuffar', which is one small example why your overly simplistic generalization does not hold.


3) Slander is a falsehood. My arguments are the same ones the jihadists use, following the Koran and Sunnah. Are they slandering Islam too? Then you must apply the suitable Islamic punishments to the jihadizers (e.g. Sayyid Qutb was hanged for heresy and sedition...are you willing to do that to your brother Moslems who call for offensive jihad?)


Slander is not necessarily a falsehood, websters says:

: to utter slander against : defame
synonyms see malign

You think the 'jihadist' (your word) represents Islam? then you are part of the problem, you and the so called 'jihadist' are part of the problem.



...and lastly, did you cheer when you heard about 9/11?

Please answer. (I am starting to believe you are too embarassed to answer on the grounds the answer is "YES".)

http://groups.colgate.edu/aarislam/response.htm

[pannenberg]

Dear BN, I am so disappointed you have once again resorted to the Fallacy of Distraction and the Fallacy of Exclusion to avoid answering two easy, direct questions. It would appear your frank answers would tend to be embarrassing and render powerless your arguments about defensive jihad. Instead, you have again inserted your own questions and responded to them. This is a rather obvious dodge. Wouldn't it be better to answer directly? That would enhance your credibility and allow us to have an authentic and candid exchange.

1) My first question (for the fourth time) was, "Did you (yourself) cheer when you heard about 9/11?" Y/N

You have answered your own substitute question (one I did not ask), "How many progressive Moslems are there in the world today?" I grant that many liberal-minded Moslems are fine, concerned people influenced by modern principles (UDHR) and even by Christianity (e.g. the Sermon on the Mount and Golden Rule). Such progressive Moslems truly believe in and practice the Golden Rule in their own lives and have no apparent prejudice against infidels. But these principles (i.e. universal human rights and the universal Golden Rule) are not found in historic Islam. No doubt, many Moslems simply assume there is a Golden Rule in Islam, and they are surprised when they discover it is entirely absent from the Koran and Hadiths. In fact, Islam is ethically bipolar. A pious Moslem has one duty (fraternity) to the Ummah and another duty (harshness) towards the infidel. Islam's highest act is jihad. The Koran and Hadiths declare war until victory upon the infidel and hypocrite, as clearly decreed by more than half of the Koran. (Majority of verses carry.) Applying the concept of jihad (terrorizing impure infidels and wicked apostates for "wrong" thoughts) effectively and entirely demolishes the Golden Rule. These two concepts cannot be practiced at the same time.

Many Moslems believe they can privately support terrorist jihad among their Moslem friends and present themselves as peaceful and non-aggressive before the kafirun! I am afraid your avoidance of a straight answer on this matter leads me to suspect this is your approach. Well, just say, I understand the principle of kitman and that of taqiyya.

Since Islam is "perfect" with a perfect book, perfect prophet and perfect sunnah, according to classic theory, nothing in Islam can be changed, including traditional jihad…so preserving this theory while at once preserving the "perfect" image of Islam (amongst the infidels) requires that honour take precedence over the facts. But deviation from the truth (or concealment of the facts) has the reverse effect when the ruse is detected. A religion you have to support through altering the evidence surely isn't worth following. Some times "I don't know" is a good answer. But avoiding the issue ("did you personally cheer?") is a fallacious response.

2) My next question was, "Where is the Golden Rule in Islam, Koran?"

Obviously, Allah thought so little of the Golden Rule that he did not put any version of the Golden Rule into his most authoritative, infallible and final revelation to mankind! Did Mohammed forget to put it in? Or was he too busy beheading poets (punishing them for wrong thoughts) to remember it? Perhaps we can simply use Occam's razor: the reason the Golden Rule is not in Islam is because the Golden Rule is un-Islamic. The Golden Rule cancels out and invalidates jihad: jihad is central to Islam. Making war upon apostates and infidels is not evangelisation; it is military and political conquest intended to deny all human rights to those with wrong thoughts.

The following is a most succinct understanding of traditional jihad:
"Jihad is holy fighting in Allah's Cause with full force of numbers and weaponry. It is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars. By Jihad, Islam is established, Allah's Word is made superior (which means only Allah has the right to be worshiped), and Islam is propagated. By abandoning Jihad, Islam is destroyed and Muslims fall into an inferior position; their honour is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim. He who tries to escape from this duty, or does not fulfill this duty, dies as a hypocrite."

An Islamic scholar would recognize the above and I would appreciate you simply admitting this is an acceptable definition, unless you are a Sufi or Ahmadi innovator, in which case jihad is entirely spiritualised and defanged. But that is not primitive, authentic Islam, but a medieval "watered-down" Islam. Pakistan's Barelvis have absorbed some of this soft Sufi heresy, hence the "moderation". So, which school do you actually follow? Where are you coming from, BN? Surely you are not saying you speak for all Moslems! That everyone else is a heretic! But the jihadizers do speak for all Moslems and they back it up with belts filled with explosives every day of the year!


3) The question today: Can anyone bring the jihadizers under control? Can you? My suspicion is: No one is going to stop the jihadizers, because they have 164 ayahs that tell them they are right and no Golden Rule to tell them they are wrong. They are not listening to moderate Moslems. They do not need to. Whether you consider yourself "moderate" or not, BN, by cheering 9-11, you have effectively endorsed the jihadist concept of offensive jihad. Couldn't you finally be persuaded, under the right circumstances, to join the "caravan of martyrs", if there were a new inspiring figure like, say, Ayatollah Khomeini? Khomeini began the Third Great Jihad that we are witnessing now (more than 10,500 fatal jihadist attacks since 9-11). "Apostate" fellow Moslems are the principle victims (e.g. Benazir Bhutto) in this modern continuation of the Wars of Apostasy. In the country where I live, jihadizers recently slaughtered "apostate" members of their own families, applying the pure Sunnah of Allah's messenger and holy companions. Brother against brother. Father and sons against daughter. The modern apostate-killers proved their love of Islam by murdering members of their family. These murder cases are presently before the courts. These murder stories could have come straight from the pages of the Hadiths (and they were no doubt inspired by the Hadiths), but in the Hadiths, Allah's prophet did not put the murderers in jail, but praised them for killing unarmed people, some in their beds. Similar murders are seen in the "Godfather" films. Jihad normalises the unthinkable.

Surely, a decent person can only feel ashamed to be associated with such ideas. Perhaps what is wrong, dear BN, is the whole idea of jihad itself, i.e. legalized murder of people who don't accept your theory of Islam and who are thus only guilty of "wrong" thoughts.

There are riots and murders over cartoons, but no one has turned OBL over to the authorities, have they? Actions speak louder than words, Old Boy! There is obviously massive support out there for the concept of offensive jihad!

By the way, BN, if you knew where OBL was hiding, would you turn him in? There is another question for you to answer.

In conclusion, here is my jihad theory: In the nuclear age, the enemy isn't the Infidel, old Friend, it is war itself. The Golden Rule is a logical necessity.


- Three cheers for Omar Bin Laden who embarrassed his infamous father with his "ride for peace"! No doubt, the jihadizers consider Omar BL an "apostate" who deserves a "dreadful punishment". Perhaps his father OBL thinks this as well! Omar has a lot of guts!






(Footnote: "Over time the term dar al-islam also underwent significant changes, so that by the twelfth century some jurists were of the opinion that non-Muslim territory in which Muslims were free to practice their religion could be subsumed under the rubric of dar al-Islam.6 By the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, reform-minded scholars such as Muhammad Abduh (d. 1905) and later his student, Rashid Rida (d. 1935), would recognize that the bipolar division of the world had been defunct for a while and explicitly affirm that peaceful coexistence was the normal state of affairs between the Islamic and non-Islamic worlds.7 Mahmud Shaltut (d. 1963), who like Abduh became the rector of al-Azhar University, was of the opinion that only defensive wars are permissible in response to external aggression.")

[Narnian]

My suspicion is: No one is going to stop the jihadizers, because they have 164 ayahs that tell them they are right and no Golden Rule to tell them they are wrong.

Exactly. A large chunk of Allah's dictated words, which are still relevant today, are violent and inhumane. These are impossible to miss and be ignored. How can you reform murder and bloodshed? Violence itself and cannot be "reformed" - it can only be eradicated from its source, ie the Quran.

An example of this is from the recent tapped phone transcript of a conversation between a Sydney Imam and one of his followers. In the Quran it says you can only kill the "non-innocents" - but it doesn't give any clear teaching on exactly what "innocent" means. A "mischief maker" is NOT innocent. So this Sheikh Benbrika said in this conversation that the Quran supports the killing of all "Howard supporters" (who was prime minister at the time), because they are "non innocents". The logic goes like this: they support John Howard, John Howard sent troops to Iraq, therefore the supporters of JH are "non innocents" and can be murdered. So, that's around about 40% of the population of Australia of "non innocents". :uhoh: This Slave of Allah went on to say: "Aussie troops kill muslim kids in Iraq, so we kill Aussie kids; this is supported by the Quran in the law of retaliation ...." and then before his higher thinking processes surface into consciousness to question what he's doing, the slave of allah will say "And Allah knows best".

[barnasha]

pannenberg, your entire post seems like some sort of directed rant. is there a specific argument you are trying to make? can you substantiate your assertions about islam and jihad?

[pannenberg]

Dear Bn,

Patient, courteous argument apparently has no effect on you. You are simply pretending I wrote nothing, when I have written a great deal.

Rather than responding to my two simple, uncomplicated questions (and revealing your own pro-Jihadist position), you are retreating behind four fallacies:

-Fallacy of Slothful Induction (I don’t need to read anything written by an infidel)
-Fallacy of Exclusion (I’ll ignore any points you make)
-Self-accepting Fallacy (Islam defines itself)
-Fallacy of Self-referential Inconsistency (I don’t need to reveal my position if it undermines my argument)

This is too bad, since we could have had a genuine exchange. You are entitled to retreat, but your are thus admitting defeat.

My readings in the Wars of Apostasy have brought into high relief the inability of traditional Islamists to feel remorse for murders, genocides and slaughters committed in the name of Islam. Basically, they say, “Those people had wrong thoughts and so they had it coming to them. These punishments are prescribed in the Koran.” And Allah knows best about what tortures are appropriate for infidels. When asked about Jewish toddlers who died at Auschwitz, Adolf Eichmann said, “But they were Jewish children.” This is an homologous attitude.


The problem I see with Islam (not having been raised to accept with unquestioning, blind obedience this uncompassionate attitude) is that there is no expression of the Golden Rule in Islam. Offensive jihad requires the normalisation of the unthinkable. In jihad, Islam explicitly promulgates ethical bipolarity and we see this every day in the news reports, when your jihadist brothers murder little children, grannies and themselves. It would be refreshing, BN, if you would tell us what you personally think of these suicide bombings. Taqlid is obviously holding you back. But this problem needs urgently to be criticised and condemned. This is a moral question and you are silent.

Because he left the Golden Rule out of his most important revelation, it is obvious that Allah could not be the real God. He did not forget to put in 164 commands to kill infidels. (We infidels get the point: Moslems don’t need to be nice to infidels.)

Kindly let us know, BN, where you are coming from. Otherwise, your silence on this burning issue tells us your position, since “silence means approval”.

I will sum up, once again, what I am discussing, so you won’t be able to act as if you misunderstood :

1) What do you personally think of the Golden Rule?

2) Did you personally cheer when you heard about 9/11?

[barnasha]

Dear Bn,

Patient, courteous argument apparently has no effect on you. You are simply pretending I wrote nothing, when I have written a great deal.

Rather than responding to my two simple, uncomplicated questions (and revealing your own pro-Jihadist position), you are retreating behind four fallacies:


What exactly is your argument, and what do your questions have to do with it?



1) What do you personally think of the Golden Rule?

2) Did you personally cheer when you heard about 9/11?

dont see the relevance

answers:

1) What is to think?

2) Why would anyone cheer?